Margaret Beckett: Particularly, perhaps, in the Labour party. Although I take the point that the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) makes, as part of the discussions to which I have just referred, we should try to put together a balanced approach that clearly indicates the danger of sanctions against Iran unless it is prepared to come back into compliance with the will of the international community, but there is also a great deal of discussion about whether it is possible to offer a substantial package of incentives. That balance is important to give Iran a clear choice which it can sensibly, reasonably and viably make.

Margaret Beckett: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his good wishes. Just as the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) gave me good advice about diplomats, he should not believe everything that he reads in the media about the nature of negotiations within the Government. I cannot say much more to him at the moment about the nature of the offer that might be made. Work is continuing, and, as I am sure that he will appreciate, the greater the anxiety to make a substantial and worthwhile offer, the more important it is that detailed and careful work is carried out.
	I cannot say much more about the nature of the offer or whether it is likely to come in the next few days, but I assure the right hon. Gentleman that thorough work is continuing. Given that what Iran has indicated will be unacceptable, it is clear that Iran is likely to face a stark choice. We all hope that it will not be necessary to move towards sanctions, but if it is necessary to do so, the sanctions will be those that people feel are capable of having an effect. At this point, I no more want to discuss the exact nature of those sanctions than I want to say much more about any formal offer.

Margaret Beckett: Earlier today I spoke to the Iraqi Foreign Minister, Dr. Hoshyar Zebari, to congratulate him on his reappointment. I will continue the regular and close dialogue with Iraqi leaders established by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

Michael Moore: I join the many others who have congratulated the Foreign Secretary on her new position and wish her every success in her new role. A quick glance at today's Order Paper shows that she has got quite a bit to be getting on with.
	Yesterday, the new Iraqi Prime Minister said very clearly, in public:
	"There is an agreement for the transfer of security under a timetable which starts in June."
	He indicated that by the end of this year most provinces will be under Iraqi control. Is there an agreed timetable, or are there even agreed criteria, for the transfer of security responsibilities? When will we get a chance to have a detailed strategy for Iraq from the Government which we can debate in this House?

David Gauke: First, I wish the Minister for Europe well in his post. I do not know whether congratulations are in order, but I certainly wish him well.
	Given that, in recent weeks, the German Chancellor, the Italian Prime Minister and the President of the European Commission have said that there may be life in the European constitution yet, does not the right hon. Gentleman believe that it is time to make it clear that the British Government oppose trying to reawaken it and that we will not support its integrationist policies and objectives, such as giving more powers to European institutions over criminal justice?

Geoff Hoon: I have made the position on the European treaty absolutely clear. I repeat that the Government have said that the constitutional treaty will be ratified in the United Kingdom only after a referendum.
	On leadership and isolation, the hon. Gentleman may like to know that, in the course of my various conversations in the past 10 days, I have met a range of leaders from the Christian Democrats—hitherto allies of the Conservative party—and, if any political party is isolated in Europe today, it is the Conservative party. I have received several complaints from Christian Democrats, who clearly believe that I have some influence with the Conservative party—I had to tell them that I did not. The Conservative party is leaderless on Europe and has drifted well to the right.

Andrew MacKinlay: May I tell the Secretary of State— [Interruption.] I mean the Minister for Europe, recycled. May I tell him that I am so pro-European that, if he cut me in half, he would find yellow stars running through me, as in a stick of rock? However, those of us who are pro-European do not have a stomach for the constitution. We much prefer the gradualist approach, which has been the EU's strength in its development. It would be much more prudent if the UK pursued that policy rather than a grand constitution, which confused people and caused unnecessary alarm. We should stick to the gradualist approach, which has been a success for the past 30 years.

William Hague: The Quartet has rightly suspended budgetary aid and endorsed a temporary international mechanism to deliver assistance to the Palestinian people. Will the Foreign Secretary tell us what proposals the United Kingdom has put forward for that mechanism, and when it will be launched? Will she accept, on the basis of what I saw for myself last week in the occupied territories, that the Palestinian economy is now contracting very sharply indeed? Provided that such a mechanism cannot be abused, it needs to be established with all possible speed if serious humanitarian problems are to be avoided.

Kate Hoey: Have Her Majesty's Government made any protest to the European Commission about the fact that the Humanitarian Aid and Development Commissioner met the Zimbabwean Finance Minister in Brussels recently? He was given a visa—perhaps, technically, he was allowed to have one—but surely his meeting with the commissioner goes against the whole spirit of the European Union sanctions. It sends out the message that, if the European Union will meet Zimbabwe, why should the African Union not do so?

Kim Howells: Afghanistan has made rapid progress over the past four years. It has established a new constitution, and a democratically elected president and parliament. The Afghan Government are committed to economic and social reconstruction. Economic growth is good and is forecast to be 14 per cent for 2005-06. There are now 60 per cent. more functioning health clinics, nearly 2,000 schools have been built or rehabilitated, and 60,000 former combatants have been disarmed since 2001.

Kim Howells: The hon. Gentleman is right that year's opium poppy harvest was huge and this year's will, I think, be at least as big. Between now and September, when the next planting season begins, we have got to try to convince people not to grow poppies, especially in Helmand, where, according to figures that I saw the other day, some 23 per cent. of Afghanistan's opium poppies are grown. The hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) asked how we can do that, and the answer is that we have to convince people that something else can be grown, and that there are other jobs that will allow them to earn money. An enormous amount of aid is going in to provide help in that regard. Some of those jobs will be paid jobs, such as road-building, providing coolers for agricultural produce and providing the means of getting such produce out of the area. It was not so very long ago that Afghanistan was one of the biggest exporters to the EU of dessert grapes. Of course, the Taliban, in their wisdom, decided that there was a link between grapes and alcohol and they grubbed the vineyards. What did the farmers do? They started to grow opium. That has not been attacked, of course, by the Taliban or by anybody else. They now find it convenient to work with the opium barons to ensure that anarchy persists in that country, but we will do all that we can to ensure that they do not succeed.

Kim Howells: That is exactly what we have been doing. During my visits to Turkey, I have been struck by the great efforts made to make Turkey a more democratic country. There are many reasons why we need that and we need it urgently. A great deal of Afghanistan heroin moves through Turkey into the EU and western Europe. We need to be able to co-operate with Turkey with confidence in order to disrupt those supplies before they get into the veins of children in this country.

Kim Howells: I certainly wish to emphasise that we do not seek to speak with those engaged in violence. Nor do we go out of our way to engage with non-violent organisations or individuals that support extremism and violence by others, but when we come across such cases, we press them to reject violence as a solution. We should be extremely careful not to paint all Islamists as violent, because they most certainly are not, and we are ready to engage organisations and individuals who uphold the values of democracy and use peaceful means to achieve their objectives, challenging their views as necessary. Some of those have been elected, for example to the Egyptian Parliament, as independents, but are clearly associated with the Muslim Brotherhood. Our diplomats have met such people on occasion. We do not go out of our way to engage in such meetings, but when they occur, we argue the case for a non-violent approach. We argue against terrorism and we seek co-operation.

Geoff Hoon: The Government value our relationship with St. Helena. We have demonstrated our commitment by agreeing to invest in the construction of an airport on the island. In addition, other UK financial assistance for St. Helena will amount to more than £40 million this financial year.
	Foreign engagements for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers are kept under constant review. It is not our practice to announce such visits until they are firmly established in the diary. Because of the unpredictable nature of world events, final decisions on overseas visits are often not possible until very shortly before the day of travel.

Kim Howells: Before I answer the question, I should like to take this opportunity to condemn today's ambush by terrorists of a bus carrying Indian tourists in Indian-administered Kashmir. I understand that the bus driver was killed, and that further casualties may be announced. That is just the latest in a succession of atrocities, including the murder by terrorists of people participating in a rally in Srinagar last Sunday. Such crimes are designed to derail the peace process, but I understand that, as of today, talks are still making incremental progress.

Hugh Bayley: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about corruption.
	I begin by declaring my interests, both as chair of the Africa all-party parliamentary group, which received funding from KPMG and Deloitte to print and publish its recent report on corruption in Africa, and for the advice and assistance with preparing the Bill that I received from Transparency International (UK).
	In 1998 I sought to introduce a Bill to criminalise transnational bribery. It was opposed by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), who argued that it could put British business at a disadvantage in some international markets. I see that the hon. Gentleman is in the Chamber; I have discussed this Bill with him and I am grateful for his support for it. Much has changed since 1998.
	Both the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the United Nations have adopted international conventions against bribery and corruption, and the limited purpose of my 1998 Bill was eventually enacted as a Government measure in 2001. There is no longer a risk of putting British companies at a disadvantage compared to their competitors, because all OECD countries, and all UN states, are now expected to legislate against corruption to similar standards.
	Arguably, the United Kingdom has fallen behind, because it appears to be applying the conventions less rigorously than some other states. The OECD review of the UK's compliance with the OECD convention noted that the United States and France, for example, had prosecuted companies registered in their countries for transnational bribery offences while the UK had not, although I know that some UK cases are under investigation.
	As a member of the International Development Committee, I have seen at first hand the devastating consequences of international and domestic corruption for poor people in poor countries. Their already precarious incomes are reduced further when corrupt officials demand bribes for services that are supposed to be provided free of charge. Everybody loses out when a high official or a Minister pockets public money that should be used to buy medicine or education, or to build roads.
	The Prime Minister's Commission for Africa reported that
	"systemic corruption can add as much as 25 per cent to the costs of government procurement",
	and that
	"of the US$4 trillion spent worldwide on government public contracts each year, some $400 billion is lost to bribery."
	That $400 billion is more than the total annual income of every person in Africa. It would build a lot of schools and roads, and is 140 times the amount spent by the Global Fund on treating AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria in Africa in the first five years of the fund's existence.
	The impact of corruption goes far further than the money lost. It creates a blight on investment and private sector development, and it holds back economic growth. Corruption funds and facilitates organised crime and terrorism. The proceeds flow into money-laundering structures, and the UK is involved because of the importance of the City of London and some UK Crown dependencies and overseas territories as international financial centres. To their credit, the UK Government led the international donor community last year in doubling aid to Africa, but the UK needs to take a similar leadership role in tackling the supply side of international corruption.
	The current law on corruption rests on a confusing mix of common law and statutes—principally the Prevention of Corruption Acts of 1889, 1906 and 1916. The Law Commission published proposals for reform in March 1998. The proposals were taken forward in a draft Bill published by the Government in 2003, and referred for scrutiny to an all-party Joint Committee. The Bill tried to define corrupt activity by using an artificially extended concept of agency, which was of byzantine complexity. The Joint Committee's report on the Bill was clear, unanimous and trenchant. It concluded that the Government's approach would not be understood by police, prosecutors, jurors or the public—including, especially, the business and public sector communities and their advisers, both here and abroad. The Committee suggested a more straightforward way to define corrupt activity. That was initially rejected by the Government in December 2003, but last December the Home Office reopened its proposals to consultation.
	The all-party Africa group, and an all-party panel of Members campaigning against corruption, submitted evidence calling for a wholly new Bill to address contemporary problems and to replace the existing legislation, which is 100 years old. To take that idea forwards, Transparency International (UK), with funding from the York-based Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust, drafted a corruption Bill, which, with some minor amendments, I am introducing today.
	The key objective of the Bill is to reform the law of bribery in a way that will be readily intelligible, responsive to contemporary problems and fully compliant with the OECD and UN conventions. That would improve the prospects for successful prosecutions and help the Government to develop a coherent anti-corruption strategy. A clear new law is in the national interest. By enacting the Bill, the UK will demonstrate its willingness to assume a leading role in fighting corruption worldwide. That will reinforce the leading role of the City of London as the marketplace for world trade, finance and investment, and strengthen the UK's role in the international campaigns against terrorism and organised crime.
	The fight against corruption is not anti-business. Promoting high standards of business integrity will maintain confidence in the UK's equities and securities markets, and tough laws outlawing corrupt practices strengthen business and markets, because they remove unacceptable levels of risk and anti-competitive conduct. The Bill defines bribery by reference to the improper conduct that is intended to result from the bribe. It defines corruption in law in the way that most people think of corruption and bribery. It is much clearer than the 2003 draft Bill.
	My Bill also includes several new features of anti-corruption law. There is an offence of bribery of foreign public officials that corresponds precisely with the requirements of the OECD and UN conventions. There is a new offence of foreign bid rigging in competitive tendering. That problem was identified by the Joint Committee and does not fall easily within normal definitions of bribery. There is a new offence designed to safeguard the integrity of sporting events by criminalising the fixing of a race or match. That activity is frequently rooted in betting and linked to organised crime. With London hosting the 2012 Olympics, the creation of such an offence would send out an important message.
	The Bill includes two new duties to be enforced through criminal sanctions. One requires UK companies to take steps to ensure that subsidiary companies and other contractually related parties do not commit corruption offences. The other requires public servants to report offers of bribes, or reasonable suspicions of corrupt practices. The Bill would remove the pointless and embarrassing requirement for the consent of the Attorney-General for any prosecution for corruption. It would empower the Serious Fraud Office to prosecute corruption cases without having to show that fraud is involved.
	The Bill is worthy of a leading G8 nation that has ratified the international anti-corruption conventions, including the UN convention now in force. It would destroy the myth that there is competitive advantage for UK companies and nationals in being free to bribe abroad—a behaviour that few businesses would contemplate in this country. It is a timely and necessary Bill, and I commend it to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Hugh Bayley, Mr. John Denham, Mike Gapes, Malcolm Bruce, Mr. Chris Mullin, John Bercow, Ms Sally Keeble, Mr. Gary Streeter, Tony Baldry, James Duddridge, Norman Lamb and Mr. Tom Clarke.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That the Order of 15(th) March 2006 (Education and Inspections Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows—
	1. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Order shall be omitted.
	2. Proceedings on consideration shall be taken on each of the days as shown in the following Table and in the order so shown.
	3. Each part of the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in relation to it in the second column of the Table.
	
		
			  First Day 
			  Proceedings  Time for conclusion of proceedings 
			 New Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 2 except those relating to the closure of special schools, new Clauses and new Schedules relating to foundations, amendments to Clauses 7 to 31, amendments to Schedules 2 and 3, remaining Government new Clauses and new Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules relating to allegations against teachers, new Clauses and new Schedules relating to school discipline or home-school contracts, amendments to Part 7, new Clauses and new Schedules relating to grouping by ability. The moment of interruption or, if later, six hours after the commencement of the proceedings on the motion for this Order. 
			  Second Day 
			  Proceedings  Time for conclusion of proceedings 
			 Remaining new Clauses and new Schedules except those relating to school admissions or to the general duties of local education authorities in relation to the provision of education. Two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill on the second day. 
			 New Clauses and new Schedules relating to school admissions, amendments to Clauses 36 to 48, new Clauses and new Schedules relating to the general duties of local education authorities in relation to the provision of education, remaining proceedings on consideration. Five hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill on the second day. 
		
	
	4. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the second day or, if later, six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill on the second day. —[Jim Knight.]

John Redwood: I do not want to delay the business either, as this is an important Bill that we wish to scrutinise carefully. Like other contributors, I fear that there is not enough time under the timetabling motion. I am particularly disturbed that the National Union of Teachers is running a campaign to influence hon. Members, as I have received two or three standard letters asking us to use this opportunity to vote down all selection by aptitude or ability. Two very fine grammar schools serve my constituency. The majority of my constituents, and I, want to sustain them so that they can flourish, and I am not sure that there is adequate time under the programme motion to debate that crucial point and remain in order. I hope that the Government will join us in saying that fine grammar schools that are well supported by local communities have every right to life, and should not be threatened. I am not sure why the NUT think that we can vote today or tomorrow to stop that practice, but it is important to tell people outside the House about its campaign to destroy fine grammar schools, and to put on the record our staunch support for those schools.
	 Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	New clause 16— Ballot of parents on change of category from community school to foundation school—
	'(1) A proposal for a prescribed alteration involving a change of category from community school to foundation school may be implemented only if the proposal has been approved by a ballot of parents of pupils attending the school to which the proposal relates.
	(2) The Secretary of State may make regulations about ballots under subsection (1).'.
	New clause 17— Ballot of parents before publication of proposals under section 7—
	'(1) The local education authority may publish a proposal under section 7 only if the proposal has been approved by a ballot of parents of pupils attending schools which, in the opinion of the local education authority, may be affected by the proposal.
	(2) The Secretary of State may make regulations about ballots under subsection (1).
	(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a proposal under section 7(5)(b)(ii) for the establishment of a community or community special school.'.
	New clause 18— Duty to establish new school where current provision is inadequate—
	'Where—
	(a) fewer than 15 per cent. of schools in the area of a local education authority are foundation, voluntary or foundation special schools, or an Academy, or
	(b) more than 15 per cent. of schools in the area of a local authority are in Ofsted category 4,
	the local authority must publish a notice under section 7 inviting proposals for a new foundation, voluntary or foundation special school.'.
	New clause 19— Duty to establish new school when supported in adequate numbers—
	'(1) Where a local education authority in England receive representations from parents of 100 or more qualifying children demanding the establishment of a new foundation, voluntary or foundation special school, the authority must publish a notice under section 7.
	(2) In this section "qualifying child", in relation to a local education authority, means any child in the authority's area who is of or under compulsory school age.'.
	New clause 21— Establishment of community schools—
	'Where the Secretary of State is asked to grant consent for the proposal of a new community school under section 7 or 9, he shall act with a view to encouraging all schools to become foundation, voluntary or foundation special schools, and to acquire a foundation.'.
	New clause 22— Assistance for proposals for new schools—
	'(1) A local education authority in England shall provide advice and assistance to parents of children in the area of the authority in connection with developing a proposal for the establishment of a new school under sections 7 and 9.
	(2) In particular, the authority shall provide support, which shall include dedicated consultancy support, to parents to ensure that any proposals brought forward are viable.
	(3) In exercising its functions under this section, the authority shall act with a view to ensuring the development of viable proposals by parents.
	(4) An authority may not refuse to assist a parent solely on the grounds that the original proposal is underdeveloped, unworkable or in practical respects substandard.'.
	New clause 23— Parental ballot etc. on change of category from foundation school to community school—
	'(1) If it appears to the Secretary of State that at least one-fifth of the parents of pupils attending a foundation (or foundation special) school are in favour of a change of the category of that school to community (or community special) school, the Secretary of State must designate such person or body as he considers appropriate ("the designated body") to act for the purposes of this section.
	(2) The Secretary of State may, if he sees fit, designate the governing body of the school or the local education authority as the designated body.
	(3) The designated body must initiate a proposal for the change of category referred to in subsection (1).
	(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations make such provision as he considers exepedient to amend, vary or supplement the provisions of this Part in relation to proposals under subsection (3).
	(5) A proposal under subsection (3) may be implemented only if the proposal has been approved by a ballot of parents of pupils attending the school to which the proposal relates.
	(6) The Secretary of State may make regulations about ballots under subsection (5).'.
	New clause 25— Duties of the schools commissioner—
	'(1) The Schools Commissioner shall establish and make publicly available a list of potential trustees whom he has approved as appropriate for the role in accordance with guidance from the Secretary of State.
	(2) A local education authority shall not consider any proposals under sections 7, 9 or 10 or alterations under sections 17 or 20 made by organisations other than those approved and listed by the Schools Commissioner.
	(3) School governing bodies shall not enter negotiations or foundation agreements with trustee partners who have not been approved by the Schools Commissioner.'.
	New clause 35— Role of the schools commissioner—
	'(1) The Schools Commissioner shall promote fair access, choice, and diversity for all maintained schools.
	(2) The Schools Commissioner shall provide advice and assistance to governing bodies and local education authorities in respect of—
	(a) setting up new foundation schools, and
	(b) an alteration of a maintained school to the category of foundation school, particularly with regard to supporting schools and raising standards in disadvantaged or deprived areas.
	(3) The Schools Commissioner shall have responsibility for strategic oversight and monitoring of the admissions process in local authority areas, with particular regard to fair access and equitable admission policies for children with special educational needs.
	(4) The Schools Commissioner shall monitor the collaboration and co-operation among new foundation schools.
	(5) The Schools Commissioner shall report annually to both Houses of Parliament and, in particular, to the Education and Skills Committee of the House of Commons on his responsibilities and on his annual report.'.
	New clause 38— Secretary of State's consent for community and community special school proposals—
	'The Secretary of State shall consent to the publication of proposals under subsection 7(5)(b)(ii) or subsection 9(1) as the case may be unless he is satisfied that the proposal so to be published would not result in the improvement of the quality of education for pupils in the area concerned.'.
	New clause 44— School governing body to hold meeting of parents on change of category—
	'Where—
	(a) a local education authority or the governing body of a maintained school wish to consider a proposal to make a prescribed alteration such as is mentioned in subsection 17(2), and
	(b) the local education authority or the governing body is capable of proposing that alteration,
	no decision to make the proposal shall be made without there having first been convened by the local authority or the governing body (as the case may be) a meeting at which the parents of pupils registered at the school concerned shall have been provided with the opportunity to discuss and make representations on a draft of the proposal.'.
	New clause 53— Duty to encourage schools to become self-governing and to acquire a trust—
	'(1) A person to whom this section applies shall ensure that their functions relating to maintained schools are (so far as they are capable of being exercised) exercised with a view to encouraging all maintained schools to become self-governing, and to acquire a foundation.
	(2) In this section "self-governing" in relation to a maintained school means a foundation, voluntary aided or foundation special school, or an Academy.
	(3) This section applies to—
	(a) a local education authority in England;
	(b) the Secretary of State.'.
	New clause 56— Abolition of surplus places rule—
	'A local education authority in England may not reject a proposal for the establishment or alteration of a maintained school solely on the grounds that it would create surplus places at other schools in the area.'.
	New clause 57— Prohibition on the establishment of new community schools—
	'No new community or community special school may be established in England after the coming into force of this Act.'.
	New clause 58— Role of local authorities—
	'(1) A local authority in England may not publish its own proposal for the establishment of new community schools.
	(2) In exercising its functions in relation to school organisation a local authority in England must act with a view to commissioning school places rather than providing them directly.'.
	New clause 61— Schools commissioner—
	'(1) There shall be a Schools Commissioner.
	(2) The Schools Commissioner shall have a duty to encourage schools to become Trust schools.
	(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), a Trust school is a foundation school with a foundation.'.
	New clause 62— Power of Secretary of State to require a school to become a foundation school—
	'(1) If the Secretary of State determines that education at a school is unsatisfactory, he may by order require the governing body of a school to acquire foundation status.
	(2) Where the Secretary of State issues an order under subsection (1), the governing body of the school shall publish proposals in accordance with sections 18 to 20.'.
	New clause 64— Adoption of foundation status—
	'All existing maintained schools may apply to the Secretary of State to adopt foundation status, and the Secretary of State shall grant such foundation status unless there are overriding circumstances which make this impossible.'.
	New clause 48— Register of institutions approved to act as a foundation of a school—
	'(1) The Secretary of State shall establish and maintain a register of all institutions approved by him to act as or take part in the foundation of a foundation school.
	(2) In considering whether to approve an institution under this section, the Secretary of State shall consider evidence that the institution is—
	(a) capable of contributing to the raising of school standards,
	(b) capable of promoting community cohesion,
	(c) not involved in activities inappropriate for children and young people,
	(d) capable of conforming to the charitable objectives of the foundation, and
	(e) able to demonstrate that its trustees are not involved in illegal activities or any other activities incompatible with the good reputation of any school of which it may be the foundation or in the foundation of which it may participate.
	(3) An institution may not act as nor take any part in the foundation of a foundation school unless registered as approved by the Secretary of State under this section.
	(4) Regulations under this section may make provision as to—
	(a) the form and manner in which applications for registration are to be made;
	(b) the documentary and other evidence which is to accompany applications for registration;
	(c) the registration, on the establishment of the register, of institutions which have not made such applications;
	(d) the matters which are to be recorded in the register against the institutions registered in it;
	(e) the restoration and alteration of entries;
	(f) the information contained in the register which may be made available for inspection by members of the public, and the circumstances in which and the conditions subject to which that information may be made available; and
	(g) such other matters as may be determined by the Secretary of State.'.
	Amendment No. 88, in page 7, line 2 [Clause 7], at end insert—
	'(ba) state whether or not the proposed school is to be a federated school'.
	Government amendment No. 42
	Amendment No. 15, in page 7, line 18 [Clause 7], leave out
	'with the consent of the Secretary of State,'.
	Amendment No. 101, in page 7 [Clause 7], leave out lines 18 to 20.
	Amendment No. 5, in page 7, line 28 [Clause 8], leave out subsection (1).
	Amendment No. 102, in page 7 [Clause 9], leave out line 39.
	Amendment No. 111, in page 8, line 6 [Clause 9], at end insert—
	'(2A) The Secretary of State shall not give consent for the establishment of a new community or community special school under subsection (1)(a) above unless—
	(a) no other provider expresses an interest in establishing a similar school, and
	(b) the local authority is rated "very good" or "good" by Ofsted.'.
	Amendment No. 89, in page 9, line 28 [Clause 11], leave out '7, 9 or 10' and insert '9 and 10(1)'.
	Amendment No. 90, in page 9, line 31 [Clause 11], at end insert—
	'(1A) Proposals under section 7 or 10(2) for the establishment of a new school in England must relate to the establishment of the school as a federated school.'.
	Amendment No. 12, in page 12, line 30 [Clause 17], leave out 'foundation or'.
	Amendment No. 13, in page 12, line 32 [Clause 17], leave out paragraph (d).
	Amendment No. 91, in page 12, line 39 [Clause 17], at end insert—
	'(g) any change from federated foundation school to non-federated foundation school.'.
	Amendment No. 14, in page 13, line 17 [Clause 18], at end insert
	', and
	(iv) a change of category from foundation school to community school or from foundation special school to community special school.'.
	Amendment No. 105, in page 14, line 34 [Clause 20], after 'school,', insert 'with or'.
	Amendment No. 106, in page 14, line 37 [Clause 20], after 'school,' , insert 'with or'.
	Amendment No. 107, in page 15 [Clause 20], leave out lines 1 to 23.
	Amendment No. 108, in page 15 [Clause 21], leave out lines 25 to 41.
	Government amendment No. 43
	Amendment No. 96, in page 21, line 39 [Clause 31], after 'description,', insert—
	'(aa) is registered on the list maintained by the Secretary of State under section [Register of institutions approved to act as a foundation of a school],'.
	Government amendment Nos. 44 and 45.
	Amendment No. 9, in page 21, line 43 [Clause 31], leave out '20' and insert '50'.
	Amendment No. 10, in page 22, line 4 [Clause 31], leave out '20' and and insert '50'.
	Amendment No. 11, in page 22, line 7 [Clause 31], leave out '20' and and insert '50'.
	Government amendment No. 46
	Amendment No. 92, in page 22, line 12 [Clause 31], after 'foundation', insert
	'including its duties to act in a collaborative fashion with other maintained schools in the local authority area'.
	Government amendments Nos. 47, 70, 84 to 86 and 71 to 75.
	New clause 26— Requirements as to composition of governing bodies—
	'(1) The governing body of a maintained school, Academy, city technology college or city college for the technology of the arts may comprise—
	(a) foundation governors;
	(b) elected parent governors;
	(c) staff representatives; and
	(d) community representatives.
	(2) Foundation schools shall not appoint a majority of governors who are foundation governors and in no case shall governors who are foundation governors outnumber elected parent governors.'.
	Amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 14 [Clause 2], at end insert—
	'(3B) A local education authority may discharge its duty under subsection (3A)(a) in relation to secondary schools by encouraging a diversity of specialism among the community and voluntary schools which it maintains.'.

Alan Johnson: May I set out the Government's position on the new clause and the other propositions in this group of amendments?
	At the heart of the Bill is the Government's desire and determination to ensure to ensure that every child is able to fulfil their potential. That means ensuring that every school achieves the standards of the best but, above all, it means ensuring that children from deprived backgrounds receive the same educational opportunities as more fortunate children. The determination that all of our children should able to fulfil their potential lies behind the school organisation provisions in part 2. We are creating a new system in which all schools operate with as much freedom as possible within a strong framework that guarantees fairness and promotes collaboration.
	Clause 1 demonstrates our commitment in that respect, and it gives local authorities new duties to carry out all their education functions with a view to ensuring high standards for every pupil and, if our amendment is accepted later in proceedings, to promote fair access. Over the past nine years, we have made significant progress in achieving these aspirations. Last year's results at every key stage were the best ever. We have radically reformed the workforce—there are more, better trained teachers supported by a wide range of professionals—and we have ensured that there are fewer schools in special measures. Schools that are in difficulties are turned round more quickly.
	Those are impressive achievements, but we cannot afford to stand still. There are still too many underperforming schools and too many children, especially in deprived areas, who are not given the educational opportunities that they need. We know what works. The best schools are self-confident, with strong leadership and governance infusing everything that they do. They harness other available sources of expertise, whether from other schools, colleges, businesses or the voluntary and community sectors. We have seen the benefits of such an approach through the success of specialist schools and academies. The proposals in the Bill extend those opportunities to all schools and give local authorities a distinct new role as the commissioners, rather than the providers, of school places, the champions of parents and pupils and the guarantors of high standards.
	Local authorities are central to the new system. Rather than sounding the death knell for local authority involvement in education, as some have suggested, if anything the Bill marks a rebirth of their role. There are new powers to intervene in failing schools and to take the lead in commissioning school places in line with the needs of the communities that they serve. For the first time local authorities will be able to propose expansion to or the addition of special educational needs provision to all maintained schools, and they will take a leading role in ensuring fairness and helping to overcome disadvantage.
	The Bill also puts parents at the heart of the system. Clause 3 gives local authorities a duty to respond to parental concerns, and we have published illustrative guidance which sets out how this duty should be met. Clause 35 requires all governing bodies to have regard to the views of parents, and any proposals relating to new schools or the acquisition of trusts must be subject to full consultation with parents and the wider community.
	We believe that these provisions provide the right degree of rigour, tempered by local flexibility. For that reason, we think that compulsory local ballots are an unnecessary red herring, whether they are designed to trigger competitions, as the Opposition suggest in new clause 19, to approve proposals within competitions, as proposed by my hon. Friends in new clause 17 and amendment No. 5, or to approve proposals to become a foundation school, as proposed by my hon. Friends in new clause 16. Compulsory ballots or petitions on any of these issues would be unnecessarily bureaucratic, requiring expensive procedures and precise definitions of process and electorates that would in many cases be inappropriate.
	In respect of new clause 16 and the proposition to ballot parents if a school plans to become a trust, I remind the House that a governing body that wished to hold a ballot would be entirely free to do so as part of locally determined arrangements for consultation, but that should be its choice, not a requirement dictated from Whitehall. Where there is controversy, it may make sense to hold a ballot. It is certainly important that we ensure that parental views are adequately taken into account through consultation. Where a school decides to acquire a trust, the local authority has the power to refer that decision to the adjudicator if it believes that the consultation process has been followed properly or that adequate attention has not been paid to the views of respondents. That is an extremely important check on the autonomy of the governing body.

Alan Johnson: Because this is not a change from a grammar school to a community school. We set out the arrangements when we were in opposition in 1996, and we set them out again when we entered government in 1997. Incidentally, the matter is different from grant maintained schools, for which ballots were also required. We are discussing a school that remains part of the local authority, that continues to pay the same terms and conditions to its teachers and that is funded in exactly the same way as any other community school by the local authority. If the governing body wants to move to trust status, it will be required to consult parents; incidentally, consultation with parents in feeder schools is also part of the procedures and guidance. It is unnecessarily bureaucratic to insist prescriptively that there must be a ballot in all circumstances.

Gordon Prentice: I have a very simple question. How many schools does the Secretary of State believe will go for trust status, say by the end of this Parliament?

Alan Johnson: Once we have established the schools commissioner, his role will be to act as a broker for schools interested in forging trusts with universities, colleges, business trusts, charities and so on, and setting up the arrangements. We greatly favour encouraging federations. The problem with amendment No. 88 is that it is prescriptive and would provide that there must be a federation on every occasion. Some schools will want to have the benefits of being a foundation without having a federation. The vast majority will not, especially given the 14-19 factors, which will put vocational education back at the top of the agenda, where it should have been probably 62 years ago.

Angela Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the criteria should act as a spur to local authorities not only to develop their strategic capacity but to deliver excellence in our schools?

Alan Johnson: I repeat: the fact that a local authority does not have a faith school, or has few faith schools, would not be a factor for me to veto that application. That would be the case with the schools adjudicator, too, as we would be working from the same regulations. Those factors will be incorporated into regulations that will be made under the proposed new clause. Clearly, this secondary consideration is a more subjective test than the percentage of different categories of school, which remains the prior test. Therefore, it will be for the authority to set out in its application how a new community school would build on existing diversity in the area.
	I assure my hon. Friends who have tabled amendment No. 7, including my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) who just intervened, that the wider definition of diversity would extend to clause 2. Therefore, there is no need to set out its meaning in the Bill. The arrangements will enable high-performing authorities and those with diverse provision to publish proposals for a new community school. We also want to demonstrate to the weakest and least diverse authorities that they should open up opportunities to other providers, on which my hon. Friends have made points in interventions. It will then be for the schools adjudicator to consider all proposals submitted and to make the final decision on which proposal should be approved.
	We believe that that approach strikes the right balance. We do not accept amendment No. 15, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, which would allow all local authorities to publish proposals for new community schools. Nor do we accept new clauses 57 and 58 and amendments Nos. 101 and 102, tabled by the official Opposition, which would mean that no local authority would do so. As ever, between those two extremes, we are taking the third and most sensible way. Similarly, amendment No. 111, submitted by the hon. Member for Reading, East (Mr. Wilson), would prevent all but the best local authorities from proposing new community schools outside competitions. As set out in Committee, we would only relax the need for a competition where there were good reasons for doing so, such as in the case of the amalgamation of an infant and junior school or to facilitate a fresh start in that school.

Alan Johnson: First, they will be subject to the negative procedure. Secondly, we tried hard, as Members who served on the Committee will accept, to get guidance and regulations published in draft form so that they could be scrutinised in Committee. That has not happened, and the hon. Gentleman will know, from the nine years that we have been in the House together, that that does not happen on every Bill. We have tried hard, and we will try hard in relation to those regulations, as the Bill goes through the Lords, to make sure that Members have the benefit of that information.

Alan Johnson: I can confirm that. I am aware that my hon. Friend has had discussions about children with special educational needs. We intend to deal with the matter in a separate tranche of measures, so I can give him the assurance that he seeks.
	Support provided by the schools commissioner and by local authorities may include consultancy advice to groups of parents wishing to set up a new school or to enter a competition, but I cannot accept the strictures of the Conservatives' new clause 22, which could lead to a local authority having to expend considerable resources supporting proposals that would ultimately fail. Our guidance to local authorities in clause 3 sets out a much more proportionate approach for responding to parental demands about the provision of schools.
	On the important matter of safeguards, my predecessor said on Second Reading that there would be
	"strong safeguards to ensure that all trusts operate in the best interest of children. All trusts will be charitable, and I will issue guidance to prevent the acquisition of inappropriate trusts."
	She added that
	"perhaps the most important safeguard will be the common sense of parents and governing bodies. They will decide whether it is in a school's interest to adopt a particular trust."—[ Official Report, 15 March 2006; Vol. 443, c. 1464-5.]
	Draft guidance was sent to members of the Committee on 20 April and is available in the Library. First, all trusts must meet the legal requirements set out in the Bill; that is, they must be incorporated charities. Secondly, there must be adequate consultation. If a governing body has not consulted, or has not properly taken into account the representations received, the local authority may refer its decision to the schools adjudicator.
	Thirdly, proposals must set out evidence that the trust will contribute to raising standards at the school and will promote community cohesion. The local authority may refer the decision to the schools adjudicator if it believes that the trust will have a negative impact on standards. The ability of a local authority to refer proposals to the adjudicator is an important safeguard. We cannot therefore accept amendments Nos. 105 to 108, by which the Conservatives seek to remove that power to refer.

Nick Gibb: There are cross-party views on all kinds of education issues. I am speaking for the Opposition, yet defending the White Paper and Bill of the Prime Minister who leads the hon. Lady's party. Let us not talk about splits in the Conservative party when she can see splits all over the Labour Benches. Her point is irrelevant to the important principles behind the Bill.
	The Government's excuse about consultation is a smokescreen. In reality, the concessions were made for reasons of internal Labour party management, rather than as part of a considered approach to education reform. We have thus tabled amendments Nos. 101 and 102 and new clauses 53 and 58, which would put back into the Bill the original vision that the Prime Minister set out with clarity, passion and sincerity on 24 October.
	New clauses 53 and 58 would simply insert in the Bill the wording used in the White Paper. New clause 58 comes from page 116 of the White Paper and new clause 53 is taken from paragraph 2.5 on page 25, which says:
	"We will encourage all primary and secondary schools to be self-governing and to acquire a Trust."
	Throughout our time in Committee, Conservative Members tried to restore the Bill to a form that corresponded to the original vision in the White Paper. As such, if the Government do not accept new clause 53, we hope that it will be possible to press the principles that it sets out to a Division.
	The concessions made in the then Secretary of State's letter of 6 February could have provided ample reason for the official Opposition to vote against the Bill's Second Reading on 15 March. Such a vote would have been decisive, because it would have killed the Bill. However, we took the view—and we still hold it—that half a loaf is better than none. The Conservative party is serious about raising the quality of education in our schools. It is unacceptable that, according to the National Audit Office, 23 per cent. of secondary schools are underperforming and a similar proportion is probably coasting. On page 138 of the regulatory impact assessment, the Government consider the four school grading categories used by Ofsted—excellent, good, satisfactory and poor—and say:
	"'Satisfactory' is no longer good enough—as that may mean that some children will not achieve their full potential."
	We agree. We have moved into a global jobs market, in which prosperity for individuals and the country depends on the acquisition of a high-quality knowledge-based education, and that is why we take education reform seriously.
	It is not just a matter of economics. A thorough education enables us to enjoy life to the full and to appreciate and contribute to our culture. The Bill, with all its flaws and concessions, is still a step in the right direction. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said, when the Government do the right thing, we will support them. The concept of trust schools is right. On Second Reading, we accepted the concession that local authorities could, subject to agreement by the Secretary of State, propose a community school as part of a competition for a new school. It was an unnecessary concession, but we accepted it rather than lose the Bill. Under the White Paper proposals, local authorities can, as I said earlier, propose a foundation school. This is not an anti-local authority issue—it is about creating a more diverse range of provision. We therefore listened carefully to the right hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), the then Minister for Schools, when she clarified in Committee when the Secretary of State would, or would not, exercise the veto. We did not want her clarification to amount to further unnecessary concessions to the Labour left. We wanted to be sure that the principle behind the use of the veto was in line with the principle established by the letter from the previous Secretary of State and by the Government's response to the Select Committee report. In that response, which was published on 6 February, three weeks before the publication of the Bill, the Government said:
	"Where a local authority with a good track record in education proposes a community school...the Secretary of State will not normally intervene."
	We are happy that the concessions are in line with those principles.

Diana Johnson: May I take the hon. Gentleman back to a comment that he made about local education authorities that have an annual performance assessment of 1? He said that they would be allowed to submit an application for a community school. That is not correct. My LEA, unfortunately, would fall into the category of having an APA of 1, but with the strides that it is making, it may well have the opportunity to make such an application in future.

Nick Gibb: I still hold the philosophy to which the hon. Gentleman refers. In my time as shadow education spokesman, I have visited many good community schools and state schools around the country. I am not talking about all schools; I am talking about the 23 per cent. of schools to which the National Audit Office has referred, and the similar percentage of coasting schools. We must tackle those schools.
	Clauses 3 and 7 are significant, and they are the principal reasons why we support this Bill. They enable parents to make representations to the local authority calling on it to establish a new school because they are dissatisfied by the quantity or quality of existing provision. We hope that over the next few years we will see the establishment of a large number of trust schools with greater autonomy and independence in their day-to-day running.
	The Thomas Telford city technology college in Telford, Shropshire, is not a trust school—it is a CTC, which is similar to the academy model—but the principle of autonomy in the day-to-day running of the school is similar. The principal of that school, Sir Kevin Satchwell, has told me that one of the great advantages of CTC status is that heads do not have to attend interminable meetings with the local authority, which means that they can stay in school and focus on raising standards. That is why at the Thomas Telford school, which has an intake of all abilities and in which 11 per cent. of pupils are entitled to free school meals, 100 per cent. of pupils achieve not only five or more GCSEs at grades A* to C, but 12 or more GCSEs or equivalent at grades A* to C. Even when one strips out the GNVQs, it is still the best performing comprehensive school in the country—as I have said, 100 per cent. of pupils achieve five or more GCSEs at grades A* to C, including English and Maths. That is what autonomy can achieve, which is why the Conservative party is so serious about the benefits of the Bill and so excited about the prospect of hundreds of trust schools being established in the years ahead.
	It became clear in Committee that the Government too are serious about promoting new trust schools and helping parents.

John Grogan: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb), and I want to engage with some of his arguments. After sitting on these Benches for nine years, I want to make one last effort to impress by speaking to these amendments and new clauses. After all, we now have a new Chief Whip.
	I want to speak to a series of radical, reforming and modernising amendments tabled in the very best traditions of new Labour. After all, new Labour started around the principle of one person, one vote. I remember helping to organise the Prime Minister's internal election campaign in Yorkshire, when he stood for the leadership, and that was very much one of our principles. What is so wrong with one parent, one vote? That is the principle behind new clauses 16, 17 and 23, and I urge those on my Front Bench to resist the forces of conservatism. They must not be hidebound by the past; they must reach out to the future and involve parents in the fullest possible way.
	New clause 16 would allow for a ballot in the case of a community school moving to a foundation school. New clause 17 would allow for a ballot when a local authority proposed to establish a foundation school. New clause 23, tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), deals with the situation in which a foundation school might want to revert to being a community school. In the interests of parental choice and freedom, that should surely be a possibility, and a ballot would be a means of legitimising the process.
	I have listened carefully to the arguments against ballots, and some of them have shocked me. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said recently in  The Sunday Times:
	"The governors have to make a decision. The school decides whether to be a trust. If it does, there has to be consultation with parents. But turning that into a ballot strikes us as unnecessary."
	My right hon. Friend has a proud tradition of advocating democracy in trade unions. Let us therefore imagine that quote, but with the following words substituted: "The union executive has to make a decision. The union executive decides whether there is to be a strike. If it does, there has to be consultation with members. But turning that into a ballot strikes us as unnecessary." I am a great admirer of my right hon. Friend; he is a rising star and I am sure that he has further to rise, but when he put forward his argument for rejecting ballots, it was not his finest hour.

Ken Purchase: My hon. Friend has put his finger on the heart of the debate. He says that democracy is important. I believe—and I think my hon. Friend shares my view—that democracy has been the greatest force for progress that the world has ever known.
	Does my hon. Friend not consider it perverse that a Labour Secretary of State—a Labour Secretary of State!—should propose the establishment of a commissar—sorry, commissioner—who would be able to override the decision of a properly and fully elected local authority? Does he not find that perverse and anti-democratic, as I do?

Sarah Teather: There is no reason why such a company should not meet the basic standards, or why someone should not check centrally that those standards are being met to enable the school in question to know what they are dealing with. That would take the load of the school, which would not then be required to carry out such checks.
	The point is that all the safeguards laid out earlier by the Secretary of State are contained in guidance—they are not written into the Bill. As I understand it, the concession that he gave earlier concerning Ofsted would also not be included in the Bill; rather, guidance would simply be issued. So despite all the concessions that have been made, there are still no such safeguards in the Bill or in regulations. The regulatory framework remains that given to charities under the Charity Commission. As the hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) pointed out earlier, that is hardly a body with a great record of efficiency. People do fall through the net.
	Anyone setting up a charity to work with children or vulnerable adults is required to go through a Criminal Records Bureau check. However, as the  Daily Mirror highlighted earlier this year, a charity that was set up in the name of a convicted paedophile fell through the net and did not get picked up by the Charity Commission. What kind of CRB check will be required for trust bodies? Will it be the standard check or an enhanced one? Of course, such issues were picked up following the Soham tragedy, which showed that those on the periphery of education are subject to the standard check, rather than an enhanced one. When the Minister winds up, I hope that he will say whether these trusts will be subject to the standard CRB check or an enhanced one. That is an important factor to be considered.
	Of course, in many other fields where we expect there to be a test of character, such a test is written into the relevant legislation. For example, a considerable test of character is included in the legislation governing those who ask for a personal licence to sell alcohol. However, there is no such character test in the Bill before us for those who will run our schools. That is not adequate.

Sarah Teather: I am making the point that authorities should be allowed to decide whether a community school is the best provision for the local area. I think that that is perfectly sensible and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has attempted to change the point.
	Surely it is nonsense to suggest that the Secretary of State knows all of the local circumstances better than the local authority. If the Secretary of State assumes that he does, it profoundly changes the relationship between central and local government. New clause 33 attempts to describe when the veto will be used, but it is the Secretary of State who will describe when the Secretary of State will veto a decision, so it does not represent much of a step forward. I simply think that the Secretary of State should not be meddling at all.
	Finally, new clause 26 is designed to prevent a trust from appointing a majority of the governing body. Specifically, it is intended to prevent trusts from appointing governors that would outnumber elected parent governors on the governing body. In the light of all the spin we have heard about parent power and about giving parents choice, it seems nonsensical to pursue a policy that would reduce the elected component of parents on the governing body. Simply saying that a school would have to set up a council is not enough: welcome as councils may be, they are advisory; and having an advisory role is a sop in exchange for taking away the power to vote on and take decisions. Accountability should go to the heart of our own democracy, and we elected politicians should view it as precious and try to preserve it. I would therefore like to test the House's opinion on the new clause, which is very much a point of principle for us.
	The Conservatives have tabled a range of amendments, but I am left rather confused about their position: they say that we should trust parents, but they will not accept ballots; they say that they believe in parent power, but they want to reduce the influence of elected parent governors on the governing body; and they say that they believe in localism, but they do not trust local government. There is a disjunction between one part of their rhetoric and another, which makes it difficult to understand.
	We will support new clause 16, proposed by the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), precisely because we support the principle of giving parents choice and power—

Edward Leigh: I wish to speak briefly to new clause 64, which I tabled, and other amendments. I hope to be brief because I sat through 55 hours of the Bill in Committee and listened to numerous amendments—some 500 were tabled, but only a handful were accepted. I do not need to detain the House at any great length, partly because I am confident that new clause 64 will not be accepted either. However, I throw bouquets to Ministers in the hope that one of them may be picked up.
	The Secretary of State spent more than an hour trying to reassure Labour Members about the Bill. It is in everybody's interests, certainly of Front Benchers on both sides of the House, to claim more for the Bill than it contains. It is in the interests of the Prime Minister, because he wants to show that he can still bring in something radical, that he is not a lame duck and that he believes in the state being the enabler, not the provider. It is in the interests of those who oppose him on the left of the Labour party. I accept that they have strong principles on this issue, but they also want to burnish their belief that the Prime Minister is some kind of closet Tory—I do not think that he is. It is also in the interests of my Front Bench colleagues to claim more for the Bill than it contains because they want to set out their stall as a constructive Opposition—an understandable and correct point of view.
	The truth is, as everybody knows, that the Bill will not make much difference to the educational establishment in this country. Indeed, the Secretary of State assured us that these radical new schools—which according to some opponents of the Bill will allow middle class parents to opt out of the system—will remain in the local authority family. Numerous clauses in the Bill will enhance the powers of local authorities, the Secretary of State and local adjudicators. It is nonsense to suggest that the new schools will be anything like the grant-maintained model, and I see no reason why anybody has anything to fear from them. A fair number of schools may take up the offer to change status, but given that some 63 per cent. of schools are already community schools, the Bill will not amount to an historic change. My Front Bench colleagues have made the point, and I agree, that this Bill is not an historic change like the education legislation in 1944 or 1988, but we still need to have this debate.
	The speech by the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) was excellent and he put his finger on the issue. It is in the interest of those who support more schools having independent status not to have ballots. If we are honest about it, we do not want ballots because they favour the forces of conservatism. People do not like change. Those who were opposed to grant-maintained schools on any basis whipped up sentiment against them, but parents could be persuaded because they are conservative and do not want change. That is why the Secretary of State does not want ballots and why my party does not favour them. We recognise that we made a huge error in introducing ballots for grant-maintained status, because it led to the politicisation of the system. It was only because of opposition in the House of Lords, which certainly represents the forces of conservatism—radical Conservatives like me are always worried about it—that we introduced ballots.

Edward Leigh: I do confirm that, and am sorry to have given the opposite impression, but is not a school that is merely coasting still failing its students? I think that it is. We want all schools to be excellent, although that may not be possible in the real world. However, it is a matter of serious interest if 1 million children are in coasting or under-performing schools. Presumably, that is what prompted the Education White Paper, and why the Prime Minister felt that we needed these radical proposals. It is a pity that he cannot use his massive parliamentary majority to get his way in this matter.
	I have tabled my amendments because the Bill places all sorts of obstacles in the way of schools. For example, a school that decides to become a new foundation school has to publish a proposal, then consult the LEA and other schools, parents and teachers in the area, and then consult any national faith group that provides the school. If the proposed foundation school does not have a religious character, it must consult the trust or foundation that provides the school. If proposals affect the provision of full-time 14-19 education, the Learning and Skills Council must be consulted. Local MPs must also be consulted, as must local district, parish and community councils. The school must also consult any other person considered to be appropriate by the governing body, and any other interested party. Special schools must consult the local NHS primary care trust. All proposals must be published, in a newspaper and at all the school's main entrances, and they must also be sent to the LEA and the Secretary of State. The list of requirements goes on and on.

David Chaytor: I support new clause 16, proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) in favour of ballots, and I want briefly to speak in support of the three amendments tabled in my name.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a powerful case in his opening statement for the Bill as it now stands. I shall support it on Third Reading because it is in much better shape than we were led to believe would be the case when the White Paper was published. Its long-term and short-term effects will actually be slightly less than its most fervent advocates hoped and its fiercest opponents feared. It will not be earth-shattering legislation but it has many important provisions, especially on school discipline, the reform of the curriculum, school travel and school meals, quite apart from the changes in governance and structure, which will be beneficial.
	I shall support new clause 16 because I tabled an amendment on similar lines in Committee; it was not put to the vote, but the arguments were valid. However, I approach the question of ballots from a slightly different point of view. I start from the Education Reform Act 1988. It is interesting that a number of Conservative speakers, including Front-Bench Members, now accept that their ballot system, introduced under that Act, was a mistake. But had that legislation not included provision for ballots, what would have been the position of the Labour Opposition at the time? Would we have accepted that it was entirely legitimate for a simple majority in a governing body to opt out of the local authority, with the huge additional resources that went with that, without further consultation with parents? Of course not.
	We thought that the ballot process in the 1988 Act was necessary. We participated in many ballots across the country and ensured that fierce local debate took place. We also ensured that when the result of the ballot had been announced it settled the issue, because the ballot conferred legitimacy.
	I take a slightly different view because I do not fully accept the argument that new clause 16 would reduce the number of schools that will opt for trust status. The advantage of a ballot is that it would encourage much better-informed debate about the implications of transfer to trust status. The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), who made an interesting speech, pointed out that people are naturally conservative and reluctant to change. That is a reasonable generalisation when the status quo is acceptable but when it is not, and when parents are conscious of difficulties in respect of their children's education or the capacity of their school, they are very open to alternative ways forward. That is why the use of a ballot would provide far better-informed local debate and would not necessarily result in a reduced number of schools taking that route.
	In the short term, I do not think there will be a huge wave of new trust schools. I am not opposed to the concept. We already have foundation schools, although few people seemed to know that they existed before the White Paper was published, and nobody has ever argued that we should abolish them, so I can see no great objection to having more of them, if it is the outcome of serious local debate and there is general agreement that they are a useful way forward.
	It has been argued that the ballot is a distraction or somehow not legitimate, and that other forms of consultation are preferable. Of course, it is important that there are other forms of consultation and that the ballot is not free-standing. My reading of new clause 16 is that the ballot would be a precondition for transfer to trust status but that it would not inevitably result in such a move, precisely because there would be other forms of consultation. The local authority would have the right to be consulted and to refer the matter to the adjudicator and neighbouring schools would also have the right to be consulted.
	It is important that we maintain the basic principle of one parent, one vote, but that there is also another set of procedures for consultation. As I said in Committee in response to Conservative amendments that would have allowed 50 parents to demand that a new school be built, I am not at all in favour of small numbers of parents, who may not be representative, sidetracking or hijacking normal democratic procedures. However, where such proper procedures are built into the system, they give greater weight to decisions.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to one of my proposals, new clause 44, which provides that before a decision on trust status is taken, there should at least be a parents' meeting. He expressed interest in that suggestion, so I hope that he might accept the new clause when he responds to the debate. However, it seems ironic and illogical that at precisely the moment at which we are relieving governing bodies of the burden of holding an annual parents' meeting—because we know that the experience of annual parents' meetings has been less than satisfactory and that the attendance is almost derisory—we are arguing that an annual parents' meeting is a better means of resolving the issues than a ballot. I see the parents' meeting as another part of a package of measures that would make up the consultation procedure. That package would include a ballot and consultation with the local authority and neighbouring schools.

Angela Smith: One of the most controversial and difficult decisions that a school governing body ever has to take is the decision to close a school. That is also a situation in which parents become conservative and resistant to change. Does my hon. Friend recommend ballots in those situations, as well? Is that not the logical conclusion of his argument?

David Chaytor: That is the heart of my argument: the ballot process ensures that the decision is made on the basis of the best possible information. It ensures that everything is on the table and that, after the decision has been taken, nobody can say that they were not consulted or that the arguments were not presented properly.
	New clause 38 deals with the question of the Secretary of State's veto and simply requires that the Secretary of State has to have regard to standards as the key criterion before giving his or her approval. New clause 33 deals with many of the concerns that Labour Members, in particular, had about the Secretary of State's role and veto. The model put forward of local authorities in different categories being able to make their own bids for new community schools is absolutely right. As I think was said earlier, we hope that, as time goes by, more local authorities will move out of the lowest categories, so logically there should be less need for the Secretary of State to exercise the veto. I am therefore comparatively happy that the Secretary of State has responded to those concerns.
	I want to say a word or two about new clause 48, which relates to the register. After having listened to what was said earlier, I am not sure that there is very much difference between a register that is compiled in advance and a website compiled retrospectively. The two sides are moving very close together. However, just as the ballot ultimately serves to legitimise the policy and to protect those who argue the case for it, the register serves to legitimise the policy by giving a guarantee—as far as the Government can give that guarantee—that a trust on the register is a suitable trust. The register also protects the Government.
	I ask the Minister to think of the tabloid hysteria in the week before this year's municipal elections. What would happen if, in the week before next year's municipal elections or the general election in three or perhaps four years' time, we had similar tabloid hysteria because one individual in one trust that had not been properly vetted in advance by the Department, but had nevertheless formed a relationship with a school, had been involved in one of the activities that the guidance proscribes? I am talking about tobacco, gambling and various other things. If we found ourselves in that situation, not only would the trust policy be undermined, because it would be seen to have led to inappropriate people becoming involved in schools, but the Government would be undermined. The argument for the register is that it protects the Government as well as the policy.

Kenneth Clarke: It was a pleasant and unusual experience to speak on Second Reading, because I was able to support an education White Paper that had been put forward by a Labour Government and vote in favour of a Bill that largely, although not entirely, lived up to the expectations of that White Paper. It was certainly most unusual to find myself voting in a parliamentary majority of well over 300 for an education Bill because, regrettably, education has probably been one of the most divisive political topics that the House has contemplated over many years. I could not help reflecting on how much the Ministers who embarked on the process of public service reform in various areas during the late 1980s and early 1990s would have wished for such an emerging consensus on the principles that we were progressing. We would no doubt have got a lot further by now if we had not had many years of dispute and—when the Labour party first got back into office—retreat, before getting back more or less to where we started.
	Despite the consensus, when the Bill went into Committee I was worried about how much the Government would retreat from what they had put forward. Of course, I welcome parliamentary discussion of a Bill's details. I always welcome it when Governments of any complexion make concessions in response to arguments that have persuaded them, but the process for this Bill was must unusual. Governments are normally most inclined to make changes to legislation when their usual parliamentary majority is squeezed, and they thus feel under pressure and in need of restoring support. However, the proposals that the Prime Minister wished to get through the House of Commons were supported by an overwhelming majority, but the Government were obliged to enter into horse-trading with, and to make concessions to, a significant minority of their Back Benchers, most of whom opposed the principles of reform as a whole.
	After considering the amendments, I share the judgment of my right hon. and hon. Friends who speak from the Front Bench that the Government have not retreated too far and the essential virtues of the Bill remain, so I will continue to support it. However, new clause 33 shrieks of compromise and is a long way away from the Prime Minister's stated preference, which I take to be that set out in the White Paper—that local authorities should steadily move towards encompassing more of a commissioning role and stop thinking of themselves solely as the providers of services. But there we are; the proposal looks workable and no doubt the guidance and regulations could be amended by a future Government if it turns out to give rise to practical problems, so I am quite content.
	As I have agreed with everything that has been said by Conservative Members, I will confine myself to making the point that induced me to participate in the debate. I urge the Minister and his colleagues to continue until the end of the Bill's legislative process to resist strongly the arguments in favour of ballots that are supposed to determine the extent of progress. I like to look forward on these subjects, so I will try not to burden the House too much with my past experience—but I think that I was one of the Ministers who were right in the middle of what I regard as the experiment of balloting on such changes that took place in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The experience was unhappy and divisive and did this country's education system no service, so I really do not think that we should go back to it.

Kenneth Clarke: It turned out that balloting was used as an excuse to try to wreck the principles underlying the reform, as I shall briefly explain. I will not repeat the principles on which the majority consensus in the House agrees. We are looking for a better form of localism in so far as structure is relevant to improving the quality of service, although I agree with all those who have expressed reservations about whether structural reform in itself can guarantee success. There are more important factors, but such reform is an important contributor nevertheless. We are moving back towards a situation in which we are striving to give people who deliver services at the local level more autonomy, discretion and control over what they can provide. We are trying to determine whether we can introduce a greater diversity of providers and have some competition among them, because we think that the process will thus become more consumer-oriented and, in the case of education, that parents will get used to the feeling that they are able to exercise more choice and real influence over the schools that they choose when they get into the education system.
	Kenneth Baker—now my noble Friend Lord Baker—embarked us on such a process in 1988. However, that was part of a whole package of reform. We had grant-maintained schools and city technology colleges. In the health service we had NHS trusts and GP fundholding practices. We also had housing action trusts. All those things followed the same underlying principles of localising and moving towards more local discretion and a greater diversity of supply. We did not have ballots for most of those proposals—when we started out, we were not advocating local ballots for any of them. We had ballots on housing action trusts and grant-maintained schools, but my recollection is that that was not the intention of the Government in whom I served when we first put the proposals forward. I recall that we were defeated in both cases by the House of Lords, which insisted that when setting up housing action trusts, which took the management of housing out of local authority control—they achieved great improvements in many cases—or allowing schools to take up grant-maintained status, the matter should be subject to a ballot.
	I am sure that the arguments that then appealed to their lordships were very similar to the reasonable-sounding arguments that have been put forward by the hon. Members for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) and for Selby (Mr. Grogan). The arguments are, "We're all democrats. Why can't we have an intelligent local discussion? If the reforms are so attractive, surely you'll find that the proposals will be carried forward by the people who will benefit from them. What are you frightened of?" Their lordships were attracted by that democratic appeal—such appeals usually attract them on any argument except that concerning their own status and composition—and we were rather unsure about whether we had an adequate majority to overturn them, so away we went with ballots built in to the proposals.
	I have been involved in many such proposals at various stages. It was always my intention that NHS trusts should eventually become the norm in the health service, as they have. It was always my intention that grant-maintained schools should be the norm. However, we never imposed them and no one is suggesting that they should be imposed now. The whole point of introducing changes to the structure was that local people—governors and head teachers, in the case of schools—should put forward the proposals and volunteer for the change. The likelihood of success is increased enormously if that happens. The people who opted for NHS trust status, the GPs who wanted fundholding practices, and the governors and head teachers who opted for grant-maintained status were thereby committing themselves to making a success of the changes that they were introducing. They chose to do that not at the behest of the Conservative party or Whitehall, but because they believed that they could demonstrate to their communities that they could produce a better service if they did.
	That is the basis on which we proceeded. NHS trusts spread like mad, and they were the norm when the Labour party came to power, which is why the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Frank Dobson) could not abolish NHS trust status when he was Secretary of State. If we had been in power for longer, GP fundholding would have become the norm. It would not have been reversed, so the Government would not have been obliged to return to it, as they are currently doing.
	There were hundreds of grant-maintained schools, but they did not become the norm. All those ballots were bitter political and ideological battles. There were about 10 such schools when I assumed responsibility for education. By the time I had finished there were more than 100, and I could probably list all their names. We fought a battle from trench to trench across the country as those ballots took place. We should not be under any illusion. I heard the charm in the voices of left-wing members of the Labour party who asked what was wrong with a ballot—but head teachers and governing bodies required great courage to subject themselves to the ordeal, and it left some of them badly knocked about. Local authorities, including Conservative ones, defended their institutional interests by devoting large amounts of money and a great deal of officer time and effort to campaign against the proposals. They were supported by the teaching trade unions, which contributed a great deal of money. Local Labour organisations were wheeled into action to distribute leaflets, and everything became a political battle, in which we could not even agree on the facts.
	In my county—but not in my constituency—the local authority mounted an elaborate and successful case. Contrary to the general argument that grant-maintained schools were unfairly financed, it persuaded parents that such schools would lose money, so there would be less money per pupil. There was a predictable effect on parents, who were not initially hostile, and had been attracted to the proposal when it was first made by the head teacher and governors, whom they knew.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) said, the public are instinctively conservative; that is one reason why we make such slow progress on these subjects. The secret of referendums and local ballots is that people always vote against change. Parents are naturally cautious about change, but they are prepared to listen to head teachers and governors explaining that they will do better under the proposals. However, they may discover that they have wished on their community a ferocious political battle, and there may be welter of warnings and even threats. Staff who make a commitment to support grant-maintained status worry about what will happen if they lose the ballot and find themselves back in the employ of the local authority, which expended a great deal of effort resisting change.
	In some cases that battle was bitter and extreme, and we lost most of the ballots— [ Interruption. ] I am delighted to be told that we won most of them; we obviously began to improve as time went on, and subsequent Ministers assumed those responsibilities. Personally, however, I lost quite a lot. Whether those battles were won or lost, the process politicised and poisoned the atmosphere in schools, and it took a long time to recover. If anyone tries to seduce us with arguments about gentle local democracy giving more legitimacy to change, they are defying our experience in the early 1990s.

Kenneth Clarke: With the inevitable result that we tended to do better in middle-class, articulate areas that were familiar with arguments about management. However, as we all agree in the House, the need for educational reform is often strongest in deprived areas where people are not used to being involved.

Tom Levitt: I hope those listening to the debate are not unintentionally misled by something that my hon. Friend just said. She spoke about parents perhaps being concerned about the religious ethos or the business values of a trust, but the trust cannot be a religious organisation and must be a charity, so that would not arise. Similarly, she spoke about the ballot making a decision. That is not what new clause 16 says, and I do not think it is what my hon. Friend intended.

Helen Jones: I think my hon. Friend misunderstands the position on trusts. He is right that the trust will be a charity, but it quite possible for it to be a charity and to have behind it a business organisation or a religious organisation. One of my great concerns about the setting up of trusts has been all along—I said it on Second Reading—that there are fundamentalist organisations waiting in the wings to set up charitable arms in order to run trust schools. As a parent I have a right to say whether I think that is appropriate for my child, and every other parent has a right to have their say on that as well.

Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend mentioned general elections and local authority elections, where the electorate is clearly defined by the electoral register. My concern about ballots is that they involve the parents of children who currently attend the school. The school belongs to the community, not just the present parents. I worry about how it would be possible to ballot opinion in the community effectively.

Robert Wilson: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones), or perhaps she should be styled, "Hammer of the trots." I could have done with her help earlier in the week, because I have had a nasty stomach bug myself, which was probably brought on by 55 hours in Standing Committee. Seriously, it is always a pleasure to follow such a passionate debater, and she always makes a great contribution to education debates.
	I want to discuss new clauses 61 and 62 and amendment No. 111, which stand in my name. On new clause 61, like Conservative Front Benchers, I am keen to hold the Government to their original White Paper promises. I hope that Labour Members remember the White Paper—I see that quite a few of them would like to forget it—which states that the schools commissioner will
	"act as a national champion for the development of trust schools and to work with potential trusts."
	The Government clearly saw the schools commissioner's role as promoting trust schools and acting as their champion. In my view, that is a worthy endeavour and one that I fully support, particularly if one considers the educational forces ranged against the success and spread of trust schools. Indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) has outlined some of the forces that are ranged against the success and spread of trust schools.
	Evidence taken by the Education and Skills Committee on the White Paper demonstrated to me the considerable clout of the educational establishment. Its knee-jerk response is to oppose anything that might weaken its iron grip on what happens in schools or that increases its accountability to parents and children. I was thoroughly disheartened by some of the witnesses, who utterly failed to have an open mind about the progress and change that the White Paper and Bill could bring. Many of them simply see trust schools and the commissioner's role as a threat to the status quo, which would be a reasonable or even worthy position, if the status quo had not failed so many of our children. My hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) has pointed out that 23 per cent. of schools are failing, which involves 1 million children, and that a similar percentage of schools are coasting.
	The local education authorities and unions that we saw in the Education and Skills Committee were a particular disappointment, and it is likely that both will do all in their power to block progress to reforming and widening choice and diversity. We must not allow them to prevail, which is why I included a section in the Select Committee minority report on the White Paper calling on the Government to allow the schools commissioner to promote trust schools. As hon. Members will see from new clause 62, I believe that we must go further against the powerful educational forces ranged against the success of trust schools.
	I have not changed my view on the schools commissioner, and I am delighted that Conservative Front Benchers are thinking along similar lines. However, we may need to do more in government than appoint a single champion if trust schools are to succeed. I am therefore delighted that Conservative Front Benchers have tabled new clauses 21, 56, 57 and 58, which support the original thrust of the White Paper and should have been introduced by the Government. They would support and encourage a state-run independent school system. That was Lord Adonis's original vision, which the Prime Minister clearly endorsed in the foreword to the White Paper:
	"Our aim is the creation of a system of independent non-fee paying state schools".
	That vision should not have been watered down, as the original approach in the White Paper would quickly have destroyed the appalling comprehensive system with which this country has been saddled for far too long. The watering down will mean that it will take longer to change that system, but I hope that the result will be the same. I also hope that Conservative Front Benchers push some of the new clauses to a vote tonight.
	As I have said, we might require more than a champion to ensure that trust schools take root and flourish, as the odds are stacked against them. New clause 62 attempts to redress the balance with the LEAs and unions, which will do all that they can to stop trust schools succeeding and multiplying. The opposition from those groups could be formal or informal, like the opposition to grant-maintained schools. For example, we all know how some governing bodies are heavily influenced by LEA appointees—councillors and others who have similar objectives and motives.
	If there are schools that are coasting or that are providing unsatisfactory education to pupils, why should not the Secretary of State order governing bodies to acquire foundation status? That process would not have to be undertaken in one school at a time. After bedding in, if the trusts are working, the Secretary of State may want to cut a swathe through underperforming schools. Trust schools would then largely replace bog standard comprehensive schools, and schools independent of the LEA would largely replace community schools. I want to see trust schools perform as it is hoped they will. There is every prospect that they will perform well, and we should therefore encourage and support them on their way.

Robert Wilson: I am just finishing.
	However, they may wish to dress it up for the rebels and the educational establishment.

Paul Farrelly: I am not sitting with my hon. Friend because I do not want to be called left-wing, which I have been labelled for the first time tonight. Labour Members have dealt with the objections about parents and the ballot. If the new clauses are viewed as establishing the principle of the ballot, it is clearly open to the Government to table amendments in the other place. However, worries have been expressed about the composition of governing bodies, and especially about whether parents are elected or co-opted governors. The Secretary of State has introduced a safeguard of 33 per cent. but when local authorities and properly independent governors are limited to 20 per cent, the safeguard may not be enough, especially in a case in which a trust in a failing school tries to cling on and manipulate matters so as not to admit failure. A ballot is an important safeguard of making the right choice in the first place.

Tom Levitt: That was exactly my point. I was not arguing against the convention. It is quite right that the people who have tabled amendments should speak first. I was simply explaining why it had taken four hours to call someone who had not tabled an amendment. So I am not getting at my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett)—not yet.
	I agree with my hon. Friend that the intervention made on him by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) was pretty fatuous. The hon. Gentleman said that the trust backers would not want a ballot because they would not want to be involved in a campaign. But trusts do not have to have funds. In fact, we do not anticipate that they would have them, so that argument does not arise.
	Equally, the scenario that my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth described for half his speech about five governors making an irrevocable decision about the future of a school could not arise either. One of the things that many Labour Members have been doing—either front of house or backstage—over the past few weeks is to try to get back into the Bill greater authority and responsibility for the local education authorities. And one provision that we have got back into it is that the local authority would have to decide whether the consultation had been legitimate and genuine. I cannot imagine any local authority in the country accepting as legitimate or genuine the scenario that my hon. Friend has been describing. It would therefore be ruled out. My hon. Friend is not listening to me, but he can read what I have said in  Hansard tomorrow.
	I want to tackle the issue of ballots head on. Contrary to the impression that some hon. Members have given, the Bill will not ban ballots. It will not prevent schools or governing bodies from holding ballots if they wish to do so. Nor does it say that, if they do hold ballots, they should organise them in a particular way. I remember only one such ballot being held. There was only one ballot on a grant-maintained school in my constituency, and only one primary school in my constituency became grant maintained. The ballot had a majority of one. That was one of the last schools to become grant maintained so, fortunately, it had one of the shortest careers as a GM school. However, the ballot was binding, and it was carried by a majority of one parent, making that school become grant maintained. That could not happen under the provisions of the Bill, because the local authority will now have a veto if it does not consider the ballot to have been properly conducted.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Sir Peter Soulsby) told us in an intervention that a ballot would protect us from the organisations with the most money, the most eloquence and the most force dominating the debate. That could not possibly happen in a ballot, could it? Yes, of course it could, and it happened in GM ballots time after time.

Peter Soulsby: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt) has unintentionally misrepresented the point that I was trying to make earlier. I said that, without ballots, it is possible—as I have seen in an academy in my constituency—to employ very well paid professional consultants to carry out consultations. My point was that that kind of so-called consultation is no more than a selling job, and that, when important decisions are taken about the educational structure that will govern the schools in which our children are educated, we want properly informed debate and, at the end of the process, a vote.

Sammy Wilson: As I have listened to the debate, I have felt like an outsider intruding on a family row. The debate has really been between the two warring factions of the family on the Labour Benches.
	However, while the Bill will not apply to Northern Ireland, and Northern Ireland has not had trust schools, it has had a body of schools with some degree of autonomy—voluntary grammar schools. Those have been subject to some local control, with the greatest control resting with the boards of governors and the headmasters who run those schools. That flexibility has been beneficial in making decisions. On Second Reading, the Democratic Unionist party supported the Government in their aim to increase the degree of diversity and autonomy where schools decided that they wished to have that. I am pleased that the Prime Minister and the Government have not been influenced by the forces on their Back Benches who wish to see substantial changes made to the Bill.
	As the debate has progressed, it has become clear that the argument about the local ballot has really been an argument about how those who know that they are likely to lose today's debate can find some way of thwarting the main elements of the Bill when it is implemented locally. The ballot is seen to be the means by which that will be done. [Hon. Members: "It's called democracy."] Hon. Members may say that, but in what system of democracy would such fundamental change, especially that which is designed to improve the quality of education for youngsters and have a dramatic impact on their lives, be subject to such a veto? Let us not forget that the argument about the ballot is really about placing a veto in the hands of one narrowly defined group of stakeholders—the parents of youngsters currently at the school. That is what would happen were the new clause to be accepted. Such a small group of people should not be handed the right to exercise a veto on something that would lead to such fundamental and, I believe, advantageous change.
	As some Members have pointed out, should not parents of children who might attend the school in future be involved? Should not parents of children who have not currently chosen the school but who might choose it were there a change of status also be involved? Why are they excluded? Why should we focus on such a narrow group of people and give them a veto? The hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) did not tell us the reason why a veto should be given to people to change the nature of a school when the same veto would not be given to people on a more dramatic decision such as the closure of an unsustainable school. We would not dream of giving parents that veto, and it would not be practical to do so. However, those Members who tabled the amendments say that a veto should be given on a decision much less fundamental than that.

Sammy Wilson: According to my understanding of the Bill, parents will have the right to be consulted, as will others. The result of all that consultation must be collated, and a final decision must then be made. First, it must be established that a proper consultation process has been undertaken. Secondly, it must be established that all the arguments have been weighed up. After that, the change can be effected. In my view, that constitutes a much better safeguard than a provision allowing one narrow stakeholder group to have the right of veto.
	My second point was made earlier by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). This will become a battleground. I do not want to intrude on another family embarrassment for the Labour party, but already, whether we like it or not, difficulties will have arisen for people who would have made money available for academies and the like. Those backers will already be reluctant to support some of the trust schools. Why should we place yet another barrier in their path, in the form of a fight over whether the status of schools should be changed?
	If this is indeed a good change, I want as few barriers as possible to be placed in the way of it. I think that the ballot would be divisive. Whether we like it or not, there are substantial forces ranged against the change. As usual, the teachers' unions are on the wrong side of the argument. Local authorities, who will have a stake in the issue, will take a particular view. The argument will tend to be one-sided in many areas, and much more resources will be available to those who do not want change. Many of those who wish to engage in the foundation system will simply want to improve youngsters' education, rather than becoming involved in a political debate or a political fight.

David Willetts: New clause 1 would place a duty on individuals investigating allegations against teachers to ensure the confidentiality of information that might identify the alleged offender until the allegation had been proven. It would place a duty on the governing body of a maintained school to ensure that its school policy provided for disciplinary action to be taken against any member of staff who disclosed such information.
	We were concerned to ensure that the new clause was within the terms of the Bill, which was why we drafted it in such a way. We realise that it might have been simpler to provide for full anonymity that was backed up by a criminal penalty, but as that would be a criminal justice measure, we understand that it would be outside the scope of an education Bill. We have tabled the new clause in such a form because it is the best way of which we are aware of trying to provide greater protection for teachers within the scope of the Bill.
	I assure the Government that we would not die in the last ditch about the exact form that the provision should take. The Government have access to parliamentary draftsmen, and there might be other mechanisms that the Minister can propose that would achieve the same objective of providing much more protection for teachers who face such allegations than they have at the moment. We hope to hear tonight from the Government a clear commitment in principle to legislate in some way, ideally through the Bill, to tackle a source of deep distress and concern to many teachers. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will be familiar with worrying cases in which teachers are accused, often without any foundation whatsoever, of assaulting a child in some way. The allegations might not even lead to charges, but the name of the teacher can be dragged through the media because it has leaked out.
	That can severely damage their professional reputation, and cause them enormous personal distress. Sadly, in many cases, it can ruin their lives. They simply do not have the protection that the Opposition believe they deserve. The Minister will be familiar with the examples assembled by SecEd as part of an impressive campaign, to which I pay tribute. I shall cite two of those examples. In 2001, a 47-year-old teacher was arrested and charged with actual bodily harm and common assault after she spilled fruit juice on a pupil's head. The case was dropped by the Director of Public Prosecutions, but she was still mentioned in the national and local press. She was harassed and threatened by neighbours, and could not go shopping without exciting public recognition. She finally took long-term sick leave as a result of anxiety and depression. That is an example of the problems caused when such allegations surface in the press.
	In a later case, a teacher was accused of physically assaulting a pupil and, as a result, a front-page story appeared in the local newspaper. After interviewing the teacher, the police decided not to take action, but the newspaper reported inaccurately that the Crown Prosecution Service wished to press charges. Eventually, it published a small apology. Colleagues on both sides of the House will be aware of other incidents that cause teachers great concern. There are arguments about whether the protection of anonymity should extend only to the point at which charges are brought or to the point at which someone is found guilty of an offence. We are happy to listen to the opinions of Members on both sides of the House, but we should all accept that teachers have been lost to the teaching profession following the broadcast of unfounded allegations in the media that ruin their lives.
	The NASUWT has raised the matter with us and, I am sure, with the Minister, too. Its president, Brian Garvey, said at its annual conference earlier this year:
	"Respect for authority has undoubtedly diminished and this is visible in all areas of society, not just in schools...I was walking through my local village recently and overheard a youth of about 15 saying to his mother that a friend of his had one ambition and that was to get a teacher sacked before he left school."
	Such allegations are used deliberately by a tiny minority of pupils to undermine teachers' authority and demoralise them. Sadly, they sometimes succeed, so hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to provide tougher protection for teachers in those circumstance.
	I accept that there is enormous sensitivity about the treatment of sex offenders and that it is important to be as rigorous as possible when there is any such risk to children. However, the general secretary of the NASUWT has pressed for anonymity:
	"This is not an attempt to protect those who abuse children. Such behaviour cannot be tolerated...Providing anonymity does not hinder a proper investigation or protect abusers. It simply enables justice to be done in a civilised and fair manner, strengthening the principle of innocent until proven guilty and avoiding trial by media."
	The statistics reveal the scale of the problem. Of 1,782 accusations of abuse against members of the NASUWT in 2005, only 69 resulted in conviction. Many members of teaching unions report that they have been the victim of exaggerated, false or malicious allegations of child abuse, but in many instances there was no case to answer.
	The Government have already made some progress in tackling the problem. The guidance safeguarding children in education and dealing with allegations of abuse against teachers and other staff is a welcome step forward. We strongly support the guidance, which contains a paragraph on confidentiality that we agree with. It states:
	"Every effort should be made to maintain confidentiality and guard against unwanted publicity while an allegation is being investigation/considered."
	It goes on to say that
	"the police will not normally provide any information to the Press or media that might identify an individual who is under investigation".

David Willetts: If a parent has broken the confidentiality in those circumstances, that should be an offence. The protection that we are trying to provide for teachers is a general protection. The hon. Gentleman is right. The protection of anonymity is enjoyed only by children. Often it is the child versus the teacher. We want as much protection as possible for teachers when they face such allegations.
	I know that there are arguments against what we are proposing. One argument, which we hear from people who have reputations that we respect for their work with children who are genuine victims of abuse, is that children already find it difficult to make allegations of abuse, that many children suffer in silence, and that the proposal may make it even harder for them in future. The evidence that I quoted earlier shows that that is not the problem. The problem appears to be the very high proportion of allegations against teachers which are not well founded and which do not lead to a charge, let alone a successful conviction, but which cause enormous distress to many teachers, in some cases causing them to leave the teaching profession.
	It should be possible in some way or other for the Government to put the proposed guidance on to a clear statutory basis. We would like to go wider by, for example, implementing some of the proposals in the Home Affairs Committee fifth report, which recommended the protection of anonymity for defendants in such cases, at least until charges are made. We need clear statutory action, but in pressing for the problem to be tackled, we are speaking on behalf of many people within the teaching profession who find the use of allegations against them an increasing source of concern. Even if our particular drafting today is imperfect, I hope that it is possible for the Minister to indicate that the Government are committed to tackling the problem.

Nadine Dorries: I have no idea. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) could answer that one for me. It is a good suggestion. The Royal College of Nursing may be considering it.
	Society is changing its attitudes. We know what society thinks of politicians, journalists and nurses and doctors, so it is no surprise that in the classroom, teachers are facing similar problems. It does not happen in the majority of schools. My two children attend a comprehensive school where, fortunately, discipline levels are good. There is an exchange of respect that has been well worked out between the staff and the students; all credit to the headmaster for that. However, that is not the case everywhere. It must be scary for some teachers to work in particular classrooms, knowing that they cannot take any action and that, even if they held on to a child to restrain it, they could find themselves in difficulties.
	The amendment does not propose total anonymity for teachers, regardless of whether they are in the right. Once due scrutiny of any accusations against a teacher has taken place and a process has been undertaken, if the teacher is found guilty, that should be in the public domain. However, the new clause would provide protection in the initial phase when the facts are not clear and nobody knows whether the teacher is guilty or whether the allegations constitute malicious behaviour on the part of one or a group of students.
	I know a story that is similar to the one told earlier. It involves a group of girls and a science teacher—the teacher who told me that the classroom is a war zone. The group of girls was out to get that teacher because she was of the old school and a disciplinarian. She taught science, which is difficult to teach and requires the full attention of the class. However, the fact that the girls were out to get her shows the mentality of some of the students teachers have to deal with.
	If we want to get the best people into the teaching profession and attract the brightest and best to teach our children, we must offer them protection when they are in the classroom. They must know that their lives will not be destroyed by a one-off accusation that a pupil can make at any time for no particular reason. They have to know that teaching is a career in which they can progress and that it will not be halted or destroyed through no fault of their own but by the actions of a malicious student.
	I fully support the new clause and hope that the Government will consider it favourably and offer teachers the protection that they need. Perhaps we can consider doing that for nurses, too, through a staff charter.

David Drew: As someone who spent 10 years as a teacher trade unionist and represented teachers in difficult circumstances, I am thankful that I did not have a case of a teacher suspended in the circumstances that we are considering. However, I know of cases that resulted in people having their names dragged through the newspapers. Whatever the rights and wrongs of their actions, that was a trial in itself.
	There are two problems that make the new clause unworkable because of the way in which it is framed, but I have great sympathy with what Opposition Front Benchers are trying to do. First, the nature of the allegation will almost certainly result in a teacher's suspension, sometimes for their own good, given the way in which the rumour mill works in schools. A suspension means that a teacher loses some anonymity because it is difficult to hold the line on why someone has been suspended. When an allegation is made, the fact that some cases can take not only months but years to come to court puts such great pressure on the teacher that it adds to the unacceptable position. Something may therefore have to happen to try to bring those cases to some form of resolution much more quickly.
	Secondly, I know of cases in which allegations have been made against a teacher, not in the context of the school or teaching activity there, but something else that the teacher does, for example, being a swimming coach. I shall not go into too much detail because this relates to a genuine case. An allegation could be made against a teacher who was also a swimming coach—nothing to do with the teaching or the fact that the person may also teach swimming at school. This was an allegation that had been made outside school.
	How should such allegations be handled? Proceedings might be taken in such cases, but does the fact that they might be taken against a teacher mean that that teacher should have additional protection? Or should the teacher be treated in exactly the same way as any other adult? If charges were brought, they would of course lose their anonymity, if they had not already done so.
	One of the downsides of being a teacher is that, rather like politicians, some people will always want to try them, regardless of the truth and of the process involved. Sadly, people make allegations and come to conclusions as to whether a person is innocent or guilty. I have raised these points simply to seek clarification from my own Front Bench.

Angela Watkinson: I should like to speak briefly in favour of new clause 1, and I want to illustrate its importance by sharing with the House a story about someone known to me personally. This is a case exactly like those that my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) mentioned in his opening remarks.
	I should preface my remarks by saying that they do not refer to a constituent of mine or to anyone who teaches in a school in my constituency. They refer to a very experienced teacher whom I know personally. He had a false accusation made against him, although of course it was not immediately known that it was false. He was suspended straight away, as one would expect, pending an investigation. The story immediately got into the local newspapers, however, and he was vilified and lost his reputation.
	It took two years for the case to come to court, during which time my acquaintance had been unable to teach. He was found not guilty, but that did him no good whatever. His reputation had gone, and he had lost his home in the meantime. The local education authority, notwithstanding the court's decision, was very reluctant to accept him back on to the supply teachers list. It took another two years before the authority felt confident enough to allow him to go on to the list.
	My acquaintance then began to get jobs in local schools. The head teacher would be pleased with him, as he would settle in well and develop a good rapport with the children. After a few weeks, however, as sure as night follows day, the gossip would start at the school gates. "Oh, that was the teacher—you remember the one—that we read about in the local papers." I should add that the local papers had printed a very small comment to the effect that he had been found not guilty. So the head teacher would ask him to leave. He would then find another job, but the same thing would happen again and again.
	After three or four attempts to get back into the teaching profession, this man decided that it was impossible to recover his career. So a good teacher had been lost to the profession. Furthermore, he had been a lifelong foster parent, but as soon as the accusation had been made, he had been removed from the foster parents list. This is someone whose earlier foster children came to visit him with their children, whom he regards as his own grandchildren. He had had decades of blameless foster parenting.
	This man had also spent decades as a scout leader. He would take his scout pack out every summer washing cars, cutting hedges and mowing people's lawns to earn their own money so that he could take them on holiday every year at no expense to their parents. In other words, he is just one of life's good eggs. The boy who had made the false accusation turned out to have been aggrieved because he had been dropped from the football team as a punishment for larking about. But this man has now been lost to the teaching profession, lost to the fostering service and lost to the scout movement. His reputation is irrecoverable.
	That is why it is so important that all possible protection be given up to the point at which charges are brought. That would not have helped in the case that I have described, because once this man got to court, he was found not guilty. I take the point made by other Members that even if it is an offence for other people to leak such stories, it is of no great comfort to the accused person, as the very fact that their name is in the public domain means that their reputation is lost. That should not stop us at least trying to control that and to give some protection to the good reputation of teachers who have been wrongly accused.

Sammy Wilson: As someone who taught for 23 years, I recognise the importance of this issue, especially in more recent times, to those in the teaching profession. When I left the teaching profession about 10 years ago, it was not such a prevalent concern. For many who are still teaching, however, their worst nightmare is to have an allegation of assault or abuse of a child made against them. That can not only ruin their career but put terrific strain on their family lives. Several teachers with whom I served and several who are constituents have come to me about well publicised cases in Northern Ireland.
	I want to make three points about this new clause. First, in the absence of anonymity there is an incentive for youngsters to make allegations because they know that those allegations can have an almost immediate impact. I do not think it insignificant that over the past few years the number of allegations against teachers has increased fourfold. That may lead to one of two conclusions. Either the quality of the teaching profession and those who enter it is becoming worse, or youngsters who are now imbued with a knowledge of their rights, and who may want to be spiteful to teachers, are tending to use such allegations as a way of destroying a teacher's life. I suspect that that is the more likely explanation.
	Secondly, in an era in which we are extremely sensitive to allegations made by youngsters and newspapers are happy to take up lurid stories, boards of governors and headmasters react immediately to such allegations and, moreover, want to be seen to react. In one case in Northern Ireland, in the wake of a scandal that had been well publicised in the local newspaper following an allegation made against a teacher, the members of the board of governors tripped over themselves to state publicly that they had dealt with the matter by suspending the teacher. The teacher was named in the local press. The governors thought that they were doing the right thing. They believed that they were protecting themselves. "What a good board of governors we are," they said. "We have taken immediate action, and have told people that we have done so"—which had not happened in the last case that had featured in the paper. The teacher was found not guilty of the serious abuse that had been alleged, and the effect on him and his family was devastating.
	My third point is this. The Government rightly want to attract the highest calibre of people into the teaching profession. That is one way of raising standards in schools. If such a disincentive is presented to teachers, however, it will be more difficult to attract good candidates. Who wants to put himself in a position in which not only his career but his family life can be ruined as a result of spurious allegations? I think that the new clause is right to propose the granting of anonymity up to the point of conviction, given the low conviction rate.
	I suspect that that low conviction rate is yet more evidence that when such allegations are made, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service are very sensitive about the issue and will therefore give the benefit of the doubt and let the court make the decision. As a result, some cases probably go to court that in other realms would not go to court, and that compounds the problem for the teacher.
	The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) raised two issues. First, he pointed out that on suspension a teacher loses anonymity to an extent. That is true, but at least the new clause does not encourage a board of governors to rush to take away that anonymity. In fact, it charges boards of governors with a duty to protect it. While the new clause may not be perfect and may not protect teachers completely, and while there may be instances in which—as a result of suspension and news on the bush telegraph—a teacher will named, it gives more protection than exists at present.
	I believe that the Government should accept at least the essence of the proposal. That is the right thing to do if we are to protect teachers from false allegations. It is also the right thing to do if we want to attract high-quality people to what is a very honourable profession.

Jim Knight: I very much appreciate the concern of the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), expressed through this new clause, to protect teachers and other members of staff from the damaging effects of allegation. I share that concern and I am keenly aware, through my experiences as a Member of Parliament, a parent and a child, of the profound effect that false or unfounded allegations can have on a person's health, family or career—the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) gave one such profound example—and of how publicity can then make the impact of those allegations much more severe.
	Equally, it has been my experience as a governor that some allegations of abuse are true. Being abused by a person in a position of trust and authority, such as a teacher, can have a similarly devastating effect on a child. It is because we have to strike that balance that we must be very careful in seeking to address this problem, which Members in all parts of the House want to address. The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) quoted the National Union of Teachers asking the Government to use this provision to find a workable way of protecting teachers from false allegation. We should continue to improve the guidance and to try to find a workable method, but it is certainly a complicated issue, as I shall try to sketch out.
	In 2004, my Department's five-year strategy for children and learners included a commitment to defending teachers from false allegations, to ensuring that teachers are not subjected to damaging delays where their integrity is in question, and to ensuring that swift action can be taken against those who made false allegations. That strategy was informed by research, about which the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole asked. The Department has in recent years put in place an audit of allegations against education staff, and the results have been published. I will make sure that a copy of those results is made available in the House Library for the hon. Lady and other Members to peruse. In 2003-04, for example, the bulk of allegations were resolved outside the courts. Of the 2 per cent. that were considered by the courts, 71 resulted in conviction. According to the research, some 23 per cent. of cases resulted in disciplinary action within schools.
	Following discussions with the Home Office, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Association of Chief Police Officers, my Department consulted on new arrangements for handling allegations against teachers and other education staff. Last November, we issued guidance on this issue in England, to which the hon. Member for Havant referred. Governing bodies of all schools and further education institutions must take account of this guidance in making arrangements to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. The revised version of "Working Together to Safeguard Children", issued this April in England, also contains overarching guidance that can be applied to allegations against anyone working with children in any setting. It is important that we think about other people who work with children. In my own constituency, for example, there has been a series of allegations against prison officers working at a young offenders institution, which have been equally distressing for the people concerned.
	As drafted, the new clause—I accept that the hon. Member for Havant said that the drafting may not be perfect—would apply only to teachers, other staff and volunteers in schools and further education institutions. However, as I said, they are not the only people who can be affected by allegations. Publicity about an allegation of abuse can have equally devastating effects for anyone who works with children. Department for Education and Skills guidance states that every effort should be made to maintain confidentiality while an allegation is being investigated, unless and until a person is charged with an offence. But it also makes it clear that in exceptional circumstances, the police may need to disclose the identity of a person under investigation.
	Publicity can be helpful to an accused person in gathering support and bringing forward evidence on his or her behalf. There have been examples where responsible investigative journalism has brought to light cases of abuse. Freedom to report cases is an essential part of our criminal justice system, and we must take it very seriously.
	The present system of self-regulation, overseen by the Press Complaints Commission, provides safeguards—no doubt, not perfect—against the publication of inaccurate or misleading information. Certainly, hon. Members have reason to say that those safeguards might not be perfect. The PCC has recently revised its guidance on such matters. I noted what my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) said about the police. ACPO has strengthened its guidance to police forces, aimed at preventing people from being identified if they are not charged with a criminal offence.
	Subsection (3) of the new clause sets out that policies and procedures should provide for disciplinary action to be taken against any teacher or member of staff who discloses any information about an allegation without the express permission of the governing body. Schools are free to include that sort of detail in their policies on allegations, and governing bodies are responsible for ensuring that such policies are in place.
	Governors should bear in mind the fact that the use of reasonable force by teachers will be allowed under clause 85. I hope that that will avoid some of the examples of unfounded allegations of bodily harm and assault that have been highlighted in the press and to which the hon. Member for Havant referred. On the basis of what he said, it sounded as though those cases involved the use of reasonable force. I hope that other measures in the Bill will also help in that respect. Legislation is already in place that permits the suspension of governors for up to six months if they breach confidentiality, and appointed governors can also be removed.
	I respect greatly the reason why the issue has been raised. We have had a useful and, I hope, sensitive debate. I do not think that the House should want to divide on the issue, because I do not think that we are divided about its essence. We all agree with the intent and essence of what the Opposition are trying to do with the new clause.

That the draft International Development Association (Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative) Order 2006, which was laid before this House on 27th April, be approved. —[Huw Irranca-Davies.] Question agreed to.

Hugo Swire: I present the petition of Councillor Christine Drew and Councillor Stuart Hughes, councillors and residents of the East Devon district council area.
	The petition
	Declares that the petitioners consider that the use of Post Office Card Accounts is a valuable means of keeping rural post offices and shops open. The Card Account is often the only way that pensioners can access their pension payments.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to drop plans to end Post Office Card Accounts.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	 To lie upon the Table.

Angela Browning: I am pleased to join my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) and present a petition from Councillor Tony Wilkinson, councillors and residents of the East Devon district council area.
	The petition
	Declares that the petitioners consider that the use of Post Office Card Accounts is a valuable means of keeping rural post offices and shops open. The Card Account is often the only way that pensioners can access their pension payments.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to drop plans to end Post Office Card Accounts.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	 To lie upon the Table.

Simon Hughes: I am happy to have the opportunity to raise on the Adjournment the subject of the dismissal of my constituent, Mr. James Beedell. I welcome the Minister to his new responsibilities; as it happens, this debate concerns an incident that occurred in the Borough, part of which he represents and therefore knows well. I hope that I have been able to assist him by letting his office know the burden of my case in advance, which I hope will help him to give as constructive a reply as possible.
	Mr. James Beedell is a long-standing constituent of mine who has lived in Walworth in south London, which is just over the river, for a number of years. He first came to see me just less than two years ago about the circumstances of a previous dismissal from employment. Let me summarise my view on the matter before I go over the facts. It is my belief that in his particular case, the decision to dismiss him was harsh in light of the fact that he had worked for the same company for 28 years with an apparently impeccable record of service.
	Mr. Beedell is a man in his 50s who, after a 28-year period of service in the same company, is now unemployed. As a result of his dismissal, he is finding it difficult to obtain work. The dismissal, which he is aggrieved about and which has so far prevented him from finding a new job, stems from one single altercation with a colleague in the workplace in 1998. It was that row that led to Mr. Beedell's dismissal.
	Mr. Beedell had worked for that company, West Ferry Printers, since he joined in 1970 as a casual worker—eight years later, he became a permanent member of staff. The incident which led to his dismissal occurred on 29 September 1998 and involved him and a fellow employee, Mr. Radcliffe. In short, both men were reported for fighting in the workplace. They were reported by Mr. Fisher, the press hall manager, to the production director, Mr. Lawrence, and to the personnel manager, Mr. Marsden. Both men were then suspended on full pay pending a disciplinary hearing.
	In the run-up to the disciplinary hearing, potential witnesses were interviewed, and the two men apparently gave differing accounts of the incident. On 2 October 1998, disciplinary hearings took place before Mr. Fairlie, the senior press hall manager. Based on the evidence of the two men, witnesses to the incident and reports from the company nurse and from Mr. Beedell's GP, Mr. Fairlie concluded that both men had been violent participants in the incident, and he summarily dismissed them both without notice.
	Mr. Beedell subsequently appealed internally against that decision to dismiss him from the company, particularly on the grounds that he had worked for them for 28 years with an impeccable record for all that time. His appeal was heard on 16 October 1998 by Mr. Marsden, but it was dismissed. My constituent then took his case to the London (south) employment tribunal, which on 14 December 1999 upheld the employer's decision to dismiss Mr Beedell. Mr Beedell then appealed that decision to the Employment Appeal Tribunal on 7 July 2000, and again his appeal was dismissed. He then took his case to the Court of Appeal in 2001, where his case was also dismissed. The final stage in the legal proceedings occurred on 20 June 2001, when the House of Lords refused his application for leave to appeal.
	When Mr. Beedell first contacted me as his constituency MP, I sought advice from an eminent lawyer, David Pannick QC, who is eminent not only in that area, but on matters connected with the European convention on human rights. His opinion was that the decision to dismiss Mr. Beedell after one altercation following 28 years of impeccable service to West Ferry Printers did seem "very harsh". However, following the decision of the Court of Appeal, David Pannick advised that there was no further legal remedy for Mr. Beedell. In May 2004, he advised me:
	"I can see no realistic prospect of the European Court of Human Rights finding that the law of unfair dismissal, as applied to Mr. Beedell, breaches any of his fundamental rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court would say that domestic law has a broad discretion to decide what standards of procedural and substantive fairness to apply in this context, and that Strasbourg does not provide an appeal on the merits of individual cases."
	Mr. Beedell has therefore exhausted all legal avenues to appeal or to remedy the decision, and that is why I bring the case before the House today for Government and Parliament to consider.
	Mr. Beedell's key grievance is that he feels that the current law is biased in favour of the employer, with, in cases like his, very unfair results. Under current law, disciplinary matters are of course dealt with first by the employer. After an initial decision, there would presumably in all circumstances be an internal right of appeal. If the employee was not satisfied with the outcome of that, he or she could then go to the employment tribunal. As the House knows, employment tribunals either dismiss the claim of unfair dismissal or uphold it. Most cases are dismissed, although the most recent Tribunals Service annual report that I have seen, which was published about a year and a half ago, shows that in 10 per cent. of cases that went to the employment tribunal in England and Wales in 2004-05, the employer was held to have unfairly dismissed the employee.
	After a finding of unfair dismissal, there are various remedies that the tribunal can give. Among those is the right to recommend re-engagement or reinstatement. The employment tribunal does not then have a power to substitute its own view of the fairness or unfairness of the decision to dismiss. But if it finds that the dismissal was unfair, although it cannot force the employer to re-engage or reinstate the employee, if that is what it holds should happen, the employer will be penalised financially if they do not follow the recommendation and the employee will be financially compensated. I understand why that is the case; it is to ensure that one does not end up putting an employer and employee back together in situations where they are not going to get on. According to the latest Tribunals Service annual report for 2004-05, re-engagement or reinstatement in a case of unfair dismissal was very rarely the decision of the tribunal. Only 0.4 per cent. of cases—one in every 250—led to reinstatement.
	Mr Beedell argues that the figures show how difficult it is, first, for an employee to win a case against the employer; and secondly, even if the employee wins, for him to get his job back. That is the important aspect that I want the Minister to address specifically, because the rest is can be seen as the normal situation in all unfair dismissal cases. One of the key reasons why Mr. Beedell and people like him understandably feel that they have a bad deal in employment law is that tribunals are governed by the "reasonable response" test. In accordance with section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996—which is still the governing piece of legislation—the question of the fairness of the dismissal, first, depends on whether in the circumstances, including the size and administrative resources of the employer's undertaking, the employer acted reasonably or unreasonably in treating it as a sufficient reason for dismissing the employee; and, secondly, shall be determined in accordance with equity and the substantial merits of the case.
	That may sound fine on the face of it, but it does not always work out that way. The test means that for a dismissal to be lawful, an employer's decision to dismiss an employee must fall within the range of reasonable responses open to an employer in all circumstances. That in turn means that a given set of circumstances may result in one employer deciding to dismiss and another employer, in the same or similar circumstances but equally reasonably, deciding not to dismiss.
	In addition, the law provides that, when considering whether a dismissal is "fair" or "unfair", and when determining whether an employee's conduct justifies dismissal, an employment tribunal cannot substitute its view for that of the employer about what is "reasonable", provided that the employer's decision was within a band of reasonable responses open to a reasonable employer.
	Several decisions by the Employment Appeal Tribunal and other cases have been reported, but I shall cite only one case. Mr. Haddon took his employers, Van den Bergh Foods, to the tribunal and the case was decided on 29 September 1999. In it, the Employment Appeal Tribunal sought to reformulate the test of reasonableness. The key elements of the case were simple. Mr. Haddon had received a long-service award at a presentation that started at 5.30 pm with a buffet supper afterwards. He failed to clear with his manager that he would not need to return to the evening shift after the presentation, although employees were not normally required to do so. A disciplinary hearing took place and Mr. Haddon was dismissed for failing to return to work after the presentation. The employment tribunal decided that the dismissal was fair because it was not outside the "band of reasonable responses" open to the employer. However, the Employment Appeal Tribunal—rightly, in my view—decided that the dismissal was unfair.
	According to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, the test of reasonableness is objective—that is, the tribunal must ask itself what a reasonable employer would have done; the "band of reasonable responses" test is not helpful as there are bound to be extreme views at either end of the band, and all tribunals must consider whether the employer acted reasonably in dismissing the employee in all the circumstances.
	The Haddon case, which dated from 1999, became one of the cases that has been used regularly in tribunals till now and governed the decisions of the employment tribunal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal and the Court of Appeal in Mr. Beedell's case as part of the case law that interprets the Act that Parliament passed. In Mr Beedell's case, the Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled that
	"the law on dismissal for a reason which related to conduct was not altered by the recent cases of Haddon  v. Van den Bergh Foods Ltd, Wilson  v. Ethicon (2000) or Madden  v. Midland Bank Plc (2000)".
	The latter two are the other most often cited cases.
	As a result of the current law and its interpretation in the cases since we passed it, West Ferry Printers has been held not to have acted unfairly in dismissing Mr Beedell and to have had no duty to reinstate him. There is no argument in law about that. The last decision in Mr Beedell's case in the law courts was five years ago.
	What next? I hope that I can persuade the Minister to see that there may be some scope for putting right an injustice. I understand that there are no recent Government or parliamentary proposals to change the basic legal framework or to adjust the balance between employer and employee interests in the way in which the framework currently works. There has been a new employment Act—the Employment Act 2002—which sets out new statutory and disciplinary grievance procedures. It was generally accepted and welcomed in all quarters of the House and it came into force in 2004. It ensures that internal procedures are better than they were. However, none of those changes appear specifically to tackle the balance of fairness in cases of alleged unfair dismissal.
	Given that that law did not change anything, on behalf of especially James Beedell, and others who might be in a similar position in future, I come to Parliament today to ask four central questions. First, is any further general review of employment legislation envisaged? Is there any plan to reconsider the test or the practice for determining whether a dismissal is fair or unfair, rather than continuing with the law and the case law that is currently used?
	Secondly, what options are available to Mr Beedell and people like him, who find themselves in the position of being dismissed, after an employer decision which is, at the very least, extremely harsh, and, the employee and others would argue, disproportionate and personally unfair?
	Thirdly, if the decision in Mr. Beedell's case cannot be changed, and if re-engagement or reinstatement are not an option, how can Mr. Beedell—or anyone in his position—ensure that his long and excellent work record is not discounted or ignored in his search for subsequent employment as a result of the one incident that led to his dismissal?
	Fourthly—this is perhaps the big question—is there not a way in which natural justice could be included as an overriding principle, or as a backstop, in the way in which we evaluate such cases? This could allow people like Mr. Beedell who make what might objectively be considered to be a serious mistake once, but who are then punished for it for the rest of their working life, to have the slate wiped clean.
	Mr. Beedell is keen to get back into gainful employment, but the clock is ticking as he moves through his 50s, and so far this has not proved possible. The principal reason for this is that he might first be seen in the eyes of any potential employer as someone who was dismissed for fighting with a fellow employee, rather than as someone who gave committed, loyal, professional, diligent and unblemished service to his employer for 28 years.
	Mr. Beedell feels that he has had a raw deal. Although I understand his former employer's decision, I agree with Mr. Beedell. How would our new Minister and his Department suggest that this case, and that of others in a similar situation to that of Mr. Beedell, be remedied, so that those affected might be treated better by the law of the land?

Jim Fitzpatrick: I congratulate the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) on securing this debate and welcome the opportunity to comment on some of the general issues surrounding the unfair dismissal legislation. I am advised in my brief that he has been campaigning on behalf of his constituent for some years, and I commend that activity. I regret to tell him, however, that I shall be unable to give him any satisfaction in my response this evening. He said that his office had contacted mine, but I am advised that we received no such communication. I hope that he will forgive me, therefore, given the specific nature of his questions, if I write to him about them rather than dealing with them in an ad hoc fashion. I know from the briefings that I have been getting over the past two weeks that I shall be able to give him better information if I write to him, and I undertake to do so after the end of tonight's business.
	I must stress, however, that the general issues that I shall be discussing will address many of the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised. While I of course understand that his constituent was disappointed with the outcome of his own unfair dismissal claim, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on decisions made by the employment tribunal, or by the Appeal Courts, which are independent judicial bodies.
	It might be helpful if I start by setting out how the legislation works. Protection against unfair dismissal has now been in force for more than 30 years. The fundamental tenets of the legislation have always been, first, that an employer must have a potentially fair reason for dismissing an employee. It could be a reason relating to the employee's conduct or to his or her capability or qualifications. It could be that the employee was redundant or that there was a legal reason preventing his or her continued employment—the classic example is a driver who loses his or her driving licence. Or there could be some other substantial reason to justify the dismissal.
	If an employee believes that he or she has been dismissed unfairly, they can complain to an employment tribunal, subject to the necessary qualifying service. At the tribunal, it must first be shown that the individual was in fact dismissed. The employer must then show that the dismissal was for a potentially fair reason. If he or she can do so, the employment tribunal will consider whether the employer acted reasonably or unreasonably in dismissing the employee for that reason.
	The concept of acting reasonably is crucial to the unfair dismissal legislation. Understandably, case law has developed over the decades that helps the employment tribunals to decide what is reasonable in particular circumstances. For instance, if a dismissal relates to an employee's capability, a tribunal will expect the employer to have appraised the employee's performance properly and identified the root of the problem. The employer must not only do that, but warn the employee of the consequences of failing to improve and give him or her a reasonable chance to do so. That is acting reasonably; dismissing a poor performer when he or she first turns in poor work is not. Case law also guides tribunals in considering dismissals related to an employee's conduct. In that regard, the employer must have reasonable grounds for believing that the employee was guilty of the conduct that caused the dismissal. He or she must have carried out as much investigation as was reasonable in the circumstances.
	The courts have developed another important test to assist tribunal decision making, which the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey raised specifically and took issue with. It is known as the band of reasonable responses test, or sometimes as the range of reasonable responses test. Essentially, it requires tribunals to consider whether an employer's action in dismissing an employee fell within the range of responses to a given situation which might have been expected of a hypothetical reasonable employer in the same circumstances. If it did, the dismissal would be fair.
	The test has important and, I believe, desirable effects. It reduces the risk of inconsistent decision making from one employment tribunal to another. It acknowledges that more than one response to a given set of circumstances might be reasonable. For instance, two employers might be more or less lenient, according to the culture of their workplaces and the standards of conduct that they explicitly require of their employees, towards the same act of misconduct. It also underlines the principle that employment tribunals should avoid subjective decisions. To put it bluntly, tribunal members are not there to say, "We would not have sacked that employee, therefore it is an unfair dismissal," or, "We'd have sacked him or her, too, so it is fair." They must not seek to substitute their view for that of the employer. They must judge cases objectively in the light of all the circumstances.
	The development of the test over many years has not been without its difficulties and inconsistencies, at least as tribunals have at times purported to apply it. That has led to criticism, which has been twofold. The first criticism has been that the test is a perversity test, or what amounts to one—that it compels tribunals to find that any decision to dismiss is reasonable as long as it is not so unreasonable as to be perverse. The second has been that the test prevents employment tribunals, which are sometimes described as "industrial juries", from drawing on their own workplace experience in deciding whether a dismissal is fair.
	If those criticisms ever held water, however, they no longer do so. Later case law has made it clear that the band of reasonable responses test is not a perversity test—the relevant cases are the 2001 Court of Appeal case, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, of Post Office  v. Foley, and the case of Midland Bank plc  v. Madden. Case law has also made it clear that it is not an error of law for tribunals to refrain from applying the band of reasonable responses test at all. There will be cases in which the employer's conduct is so clearly reasonable or unreasonable that that there is no range of responses to consider. It has also emphasised that the test does not preclude tribunals from applying their industrial experience to the facts of a case. They can do so, and should do so, in deciding how a hypothetical reasonable employer might have responded when presented with the same facts.
	None of that will assuage the disappointment of employees and/or employers who lose unfair dismissal cases, as one or the other must fail in every case. Their disappointment is natural, and it is perhaps also natural that in some cases it will promote a belief that the law must be loaded against one side or the other. The law is about balance, however, and it would clearly be unworkable to allow employers no discretion at all in dismissing employees. Since they must have some discretion, the question is how much. What is the proper balance between protecting employees from unfair treatment and enabling employers to run their businesses without undue constraint? I realise that this will disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but I believe that the current legislation and the band of reasonable responses test get the balance right. At the moment, we have no plans to override that, but as I said, I shall write to him about where we are with employment legislation.
	That said, we are not complacent about employment law. We have made significant changes since 1997. For instance, for a long time the period of service that most employees must accrue before they qualify to make an unfair dismissal claim stood at two years. Some employers claimed that a substantial qualifying period was necessary so that they could rectify recruitment mistakes without the risk of facing a tribunal claim. We accept that recruitment mistakes do happen, but we believed that two years was longer than employers needed to discover and deal with them. In 1999, therefore, we reduced the qualifying period to one year, thus protecting more employees against the risk of arbitrary dismissal.
	I could go on to describe in detail the new disputes resolution procedures that we introduced via the Employment Act 2002, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. We hoped that they would help to improve protection for employers and employees against having to have recourse to employment tribunals, and we believe that they have done so. Time is against me, however. I said at the outset that I did not expect the hon. Gentleman to be satisfied with my comments, and I have probably lived up to that expectation, but I have undertaken to write to him in response to the specific questions that are now recorded in  Hansard, and I shall ensure that my office deals with that as expeditiously as possible.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.